Oral Answers to Questions

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked--

Foot and Mouth

Michael Jack: If she will make a statement on the holding of a public inquiry into matters relating to the foot and mouth outbreak. [R]

Margaret Beckett: I begin by apologising to the House for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs who, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is a most assiduous and conscientious Member. He has written to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) and to you about his unavoidable absence. Also, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment is attending the preparatory discussions in The Hague for the forthcoming conference of parties on climate change. As you know, Mr. Speaker, it is always difficult at this stage in a Parliament, when no one can foresee the timing of these events.
	It is right that we consider very carefully the issues connected with the foot and mouth outbreak. The question whether there should be a public inquiry as such is one for the Prime Minister.

Michael Jack: I welcome the right hon. Lady to her first Question Time in her new Department. She mentioned the Prime Minister, but yesterday, when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked him a simple question as to whether there would be a full-scale public inquiry into foot and mouth disease, the Prime Minister had considerable difficulty in giving a straightforward answer. Why are the Government finding it so difficult to answer that question?
	We do understand that if the disease has a long tail, there may be a question about the timing of such an inquiry, but could not the right hon. Lady say today that in principle the Government accept that there should be a full-scale public inquiry, so that evidence can be accumulated before memories start to fade? If the Government have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear from holding such an inquiry.

Margaret Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman is both too intelligent and too experienced not to know how disingenuous he is being. I was surprised to read in yesterday's press the perfectly untruthful allegation that Ministers had ever suggested that there might not be an inquiry. The Prime Minister has made it perfectly clear from the start, as has every Minister who has commented on the matter, that of course, at the right time, there will be an inquiry. No one is more anxious than this Government to see that inquiry fully held.
	The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the term "full public inquiry" has a precise legal meaning. He may well have heard the recent radio interview with the president of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, in which the interviewer confidently asked, "Aren't you demanding that the Government commit themselves to a full public inquiry now?" and the answer was, "No, we are not, because what we want is an inquiry when the outbreak is over; an inquiry which is thorough and expeditious and which tells people, in the farming community and beyond, what they need to know."
	I heard hon. Gentlemen say from the Conservative Back Benches, "We are calling for a full public inquiry." Yes, they are--not in the interests of agriculture, but because they hope it will be in the interests of the Conservative party.

Derek Foster: I welcome my right hon. Friend and her colleagues to their new positions and welcome the new Department, but I also pay tribute to their predecessors, who did a superb job in the most difficult circumstances. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] As someone who has had 44 cases of foot and mouth confirmed in my constituency and 240 farms culled out--a disastrous time for the whole of Teesdale--may I add my voice to those calling for a public inquiry into foot and mouth disease?

Margaret Beckett: Of course I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for what he said about my predecessors. I share his view that they have nothing to fear, and nothing to be ashamed of in their handling of the outbreak. I also wholeheartedly accept my right hon. Friend's assessment of the great problems and difficulties that have been caused in his area, as in many others, and of the need for a thorough look at everything that happened in the course of this disease, not least because its scale and the manner of its spread have been unprecedented. It is extremely important that we learn as much as we can from all the aspects of the case that we can.

Colin Breed: It is quite clear to everyone, not only in the House but in the country, that the scale of this disease demands a full, public, open and independent inquiry, and I hope that at some stage Ministers will recognise that. Surely, however, we do not need a panel of experts to tell us some of the obvious lessons; so will the right hon. Lady give us assurances that the Government are getting to grips with three things in particular? First, we need tighter port health inspections, so that we do not become subject to foot and mouth disease again very quickly. Secondly, we should alert the public, and everyone in the country, to the need to look at personal imports of food and plants, so that we can keep disease out for as long as possible. Thirdly, we should introduce new biosecurity measures for all farms, and inspections to ensure that we reduce any incidence of animal disease in future.

Margaret Beckett: Of course I take the hon. Gentleman's point. He will have heard Ministers say repeatedly from the Dispatch Box that we are looking at, and taking on board, all issues of the kind that he raised. However, he will know that it is as yet not clear--although I know that there have been widespread allegations--whether the cause of the initial outbreak was imported food, and particularly whether it was illegally imported food. However, that does not alter the fact that of course it is important to ensure that that does not become a possible source of another outbreak, and the Government are very mindful of that.

David Drew: I welcome the call for an open investigation, but will my right hon. Friend also make sure that that will include intelligence reports, whether from the police or trading standards, to ensure that we have the fullest possible knowledge about what went on during this dreadful outbreak?

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is certainly right to draw attention to the range of material and information that may be available. He is also right to say that we need to take a careful and thorough look at how the disease spread as it did. I understand that not least among the reasons is that the presence of the disease was not known of for fully two to three weeks, which was probably the prime cause of the nature of the difficulties that followed.

Douglas Hogg: As it is quite plain that the right hon. Lady will not be appearing in front of a public inquiry in the near future, will she please undertake a personal inquiry into whether movement licences to and from Lincolnshire, which is not an affected area, are being unduly restricted? Furthermore, will she undertake a personal inquiry into why letters from me to her and to her predecessor regarding Mr. Dorey and his application for a licence have not yet been replied to despite the fact that I wrote on 28 May?

Margaret Beckett: First, I find it somewhat ironic to hear Conservative Members holding forth about the need for a public inquiry when I consider that, for so many years, they resisted any call for an inquiry into the BSE outbreak, which was infinitely worse even than foot and mouth.
	Of course we are considering the movement restrictions. Indeed, we have made some changes and there was some alleviation a few days ago, which I understood to have been quite widely welcomed in the agricultural community. I am afraid that I have not seen the letter to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. I am sorry to learn that he has been waiting for a reply and I will certainly look into it.

Mark Todd: First, I welcome my right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour to her new post. Already many farmers in Derbyshire have expressed enthusiasm for having such a local interest in their subject. Secondly, I echo the points made by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, but would add one element that he missed. Should not the consideration of import controls and their adequacy be tackled with our European neighbours to ensure the security of internal transactions within the European market and to ensure our ability to be confident of the adequacy of those controls at the first point of entry into the European Union?

Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. We have always worked closely together in the locality and I look forward to working even more closely with him now if, as may indeed be the case--of course, it is not a matter for me--he remains a member of the relevant Select Committee.
	My hon. Friend has a good deal of knowledge in this field and I entirely accept his point. It is important not only that we have the right approach, policy and scrutiny as regards the handling of imports, but that we encourage others elsewhere in the European Union to learn from our experiences and take their own precautions. I am happy to say that, as my predecessor reported to the House, I see every sign of the very supportive and sympathetic hearing that we have had from our European colleagues at the Council of Ministers continuing. It is clear that they are anxious to learn for themselves the lessons that we have had to learn.

Tim Yeo: I recognise that the previous Conservative Government were wrong to resist the calls for an inquiry into BSE. I am amazed that the very Labour Members who were so vocal in their calls for that inquiry appear, now that they are Ministers, to be resisting similar calls for an inquiry into foot and mouth disease. The Government have lost the trust of rural communities because of their handling of foot and mouth. Only an independent and public inquiry at which Ministers and former Ministers can be questioned will restore that trust. The previous Labour Government held such an inquiry after the 1967 epidemic. Surely the Secretary of State realises that sooner or later she will be forced to do the same thing for this epidemic. On Tuesday morning, I sent her our proposed terms of reference for the inquiry. Will she say what was wrong with those?

Margaret Beckett: I am delighted to hear what the hon. Gentleman said about the BSE inquiry--a sinner who comes to repentance late is better than a sinner who does not repent at all. Nevertheless, that does not excuse the Conservative party's rather pathetic behaviour in trying to pretend that the Government have not said from the very beginning that of course we have every intention of holding an inquiry.
	Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that the president of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons said:
	"We are not looking for a full public inquiry on the model of the Phillips BSE Inquiry, which took . . . two to three years . . . and cost probably thirty five million."
	The form that any inquiry should take is clearly very much an issue to be kept under review because--I repeat--despite what Opposition Members say, I see no evidence whatever from the rural communities that they want anything other than an inquiry that, yes, is carried out properly and expeditiously and that produces the information that people want. They are not interested in party political games; they are interested in answers.

Kyoto

David Kidney: What assessment she has made of the level of international support for the Kyoto agreement.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: What measures she plans to advance the Kyoto accord.

Elliot Morley: The overwhelming majority of countries continue to support the Kyoto protocol. The Government will continue to make every effort to promote a successful outcome at the next round of negotiations in Bonn in July. We will also continue to encourage the United States to re-engage with the Kyoto protocol.

David Kidney: I am fortified in pursuing this question by the batch of letters that I received this week from Rising Brook high school, from 13 and 14-year-olds putting forward their concerns about global warming and their suggestions for meeting the challenge. On their behalf, as well as my own, I shall ask some specific questions. Will President Bush's decision to turn his back on the Kyoto protocol undermine the resolve of other signatories to ratify it? What line on global warming is my hon. Friend's Department taking in its relations with its American counterpart?

Elliot Morley: We very much regret the fact that President Bush has stated that the United States is not prepared to ratify the agreement. We believe that it is important to engage the Americans and to continue to try to persuade them that such an agreement is absolutely vital. I am very pleased to hear about the interest of young people in my hon. Friend's constituency, because the agreement is very much about the future of this country and, indeed, the future globally.
	I am pleased to say that other countries are actively engaging in discussions. I should also make it clear that, if necessary, we will go ahead with the ratification of the Kyoto treaty without the Americans, but we would much prefer them to engage in the process, and we hope that they will reconsider their position.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does the Minister agree that the Kyoto protocol is arguably the most important environmental issue that the world faces at the moment and that Britain could play a very constructive role in brokering a deal between the United States and the rest of the world; but does he also agree that that role is diminished by the fact that his Department is undertaking the preparatory negotiations, yet the Deputy Prime Minister is now in charge not only of the negotiations but of the Cabinet Office? Is that a tribute to the Deputy Prime Minister's forensic negotiating skills, or yet another example of unjoined-up government?

Elliot Morley: It seems to me that the contrary is true, because the Deputy Prime Minister has had a long involvement in the negotiations, and he will continue to do so, but the Government take the issue very seriously. That is why we have engaged in it at a number of levels, and of course it is a very important issue for my Department. The fact is that we think we are making very good progress. We have a long way to go, but there is a possibility of reaching an agreement at Bonn. We are also encouraged that, in subsequent speeches, President Bush has recognised the importance of the agreement and has also been somewhat taken aback by the strength of feeling internationally about the fact that the Americans, who are such big energy users, are not prepared to ratify the agreement. So, we have work to do, but I believe that we can make progress, and we are engaged at all levels of government because of the importance that we give to such issues.

Caroline Flint: Does my hon. Friend agree that the platform that we take on the world stage should be very much joined up with the platform we take not only on national policies but in the European Union? In my part of south Yorkshire, which he knows very well, we are seeking European protection for Thorne and Hatfield moors to end peat extraction on that land and to restore that very precious asset, not only for Britain but for Europe and the world. Will he support our proposal to make that land a candidate for special European protection when we seek to submit the names shortly?

Elliot Morley: It is important that we conserve all natural resources. Thorne and Hatfield moors are one of the best examples of raised peat bog in this country. My hon. Friend is right to say that I know it well. I am aware of the enormous amount of work that she and her colleagues in the area have put into conserving it. We certainly want to see progress made in the designation and protection of that important site.

Damian Green: It is clear that hon. Members on both sides of the House are rightly exercised about the threat to Kyoto. Will the Minister focus on the Government's responsibilities? The House of Commons Library tells me that of the 84 signatories to the protocol, 34 have ratified it. That group does not include the United Kingdom. Why have the Government not ratified the protocol and when do they propose to do so? Will they concentrate a little less on lecturing others and a little more on doing something to move the Kyoto process forward?

Elliot Morley: I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman does not seem to have been following the progress of the negotiations. If he had, he would understand that it is better for us to ratify in conjunction with our European partners, in a block rather than individually. That is what we are moving towards. There is no delay. We want to ensure that the agreement is supported internationally, so we are preparing the ground for ratification together with our European and other partners.

Rights of Way

Paddy Tipping: What advice has been given to local authorities about reopening the rights of way network.

Margaret Beckett: In my statement last week, I said that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs would review the powers of local authorities to impose a blanket ban on footpaths in an area. He has now announced the intention to lift this general power except where a specific local authority shows that it needs to continue the power for a further period.

Paddy Tipping: Has not the foot and mouth crisis and the consequent closure of the footpaths shown the economic value that walkers, climbers and birdwatchers contribute to the rural economy? Given that, is it not ill-conceived and short-sighted for councils such as those in Lincolnshire, the East Riding of Yorkshire and Hertfordshire to have made so little progress in opening footpaths? Will my right hon. Friend introduce proposals to get rid of the blanket ban as quickly as possible?

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important and powerful point. It has been a revelation to people in many areas of the countryside to realise the sheer value that walkers and hikers contribute to the local economy. It has been a surprise for people to find how much difference the lack of walkers has made. In the longer term, that can only be worth while.
	I understand my hon. Friend's concern that some authorities have been particularly resistant to or ultra-cautious about opening footpaths. We wanted to wait and see how much progress could be made without revocation of the ban, but officials are now in discussion with local authority representatives, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State hopes to make a further announcement in about two weeks.

Patrick Cormack: Does not the issue illustrate the need for a proper public inquiry? Does the right hon. Lady accept that what should be of paramount concern is the safety and the future of British agriculture? That is all that matters at the end of the day. Cannot all those issues be properly examined only if there is a full public inquiry when the outbreak finally comes to an end?

Margaret Beckett: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity in working into this question, a request for a full public inquiry, as there is no evidence that any walker or hiker has made contact with foot and mouth disease. As I have said on many occasions, and as my predecessors have said, the Government have every intention of holding an inquiry, but we do not wish to be bound to a specific legal form at this time as we want to find the most effective way of carrying one out.

Andrew Bennett: I welcome the Government's decision to consider the blanket ban on footpaths. As we move towards the school holidays and the holiday season generally, does my right hon. Friend accept that it is most important that clear and accurate information is available across the country to people thinking of visiting the countryside about how many footpaths and how much access land will be available to them?

Margaret Beckett: I accept that, and I take my hon. Friend's point. We are doing everything that we can to make available information that is as up to date and accurate as possible. My hon. Friend will know that a code of conduct for users of rights of way is available on the former MAFF website. We are endeavouring to make available as much information as possible so that people can use the footpaths in the summer holidays.

David Burnside: Will the right hon. Lady seek a case study from the devolved Stormont Department responsible for agriculture and read it carefully to learn the lessons from the more effective, efficient and competent handling of the foot and mouth crisis evident in Northern Ireland? As someone who lives on a farm there and knows England, I think that there are many lessons to be learned.

Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that. We keep in touch with the devolved Administrations and endeavour to learn what we can from each other. However, the sheer scale of the problems that were faced by the authorities in other parts of the United Kingdom were not quite matched by the problems in Northern Ireland.

Food Sourcing

Colin Pickthall: If she will meet the British Retail Consortium to discuss methods of improving local sourcing of food produce.

Elliot Morley: The British Retail Consortium represents one of the key sectors in the UK food chain. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met it yesterday and they discussed a wide range of issues.

Colin Pickthall: I am pleased about the coincidence of that meeting's timing. Does my hon. Friend agree that the British Retail Consortium has an enormously important role to play in encouraging local sourcing of agricultural produce? Does he also agree that the practice by some of the big retailers of arbitrarily ending contracts with local growers, especially in Lancashire, creates serious business problems for growers and increases the environmental damage by multiplying lorry miles as they haul heavy produce back and forth across the country? Will he continue to place pressure on the British Retail Consortium to strengthen local sourcing of produce and fully shoulder its environmental responsibilities?

Elliot Morley: My hon. Friend makes a serious point about food miles, regional foods, regional distribution and regional marketing, and we raise those issues with the British Retail Consortium and large retailers. He will be aware that following on from the Competition Commission report, a statutory code of practice has been recommended to cover some of those matters. That is being prepared by the Department of Trade and Industry and will be completed in due course.

David Heath: The Minister will know about the great number of distortions in the food chain. Of particular concern for dairy farmers is the failure to achieve a sustainable increase in the farmgate price of milk for both liquid milk and cheese production. There was a hint in the previous Parliament that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was producing a study on the food chain as it applies to milk producers and the supermarkets. Will he confirm whether that is the case? If it is, when will the report be finalised and what action will be taken to improve the lot of dairy farmers?

Elliot Morley: One change that will improve the lot of dairy farmers is to act on the Competition Commission's former recommendations to split up the former Milk Marque into regional co-operatives. That will help with prices and competition. We consider the issues carefully, but most are market driven. That is why it is important for the agricultural sector to ally itself more closely with the market and consumers. The Department is, of course, providing help and support, both financially in terms of market advice and in discussions with end users.

George Howarth: If my hon. Friend has such discussions, will he consider how the quality of pigmeat from animals raised on swill differs from that of pigmeat produced by other forms of pig-rearing methods? I understand that the taste is different. Will he consider whether it is appropriate to lift the ban on properly prepared pigswill so that that market can be more fully exploited?

Elliot Morley: The ban on pigswill was introduced as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak, in the light of concerns about applying the regulations on heat treatment, and that was the appropriate course to take. There are one or two exemptions for pig feed that has a low risk of disease spread. We will give those matters careful consideration.

James Paice: In the light of the claim this week by the major bakeries, justifying the 9p rise in the price of a loaf of bread on the basis of an increase in wheat prices--whereas, in fact, as I am sure the Minister knows, the total cost of the wheat content of bread is less than 8p a loaf and the increase probably 1p--will the Government now adopt the Opposition's policy to introduce a quarterly survey of comparisons between trends in retail prices and in farmgate prices, so that both consumers and farmers know who is being taken for a ride by manufacturers?

Elliot Morley: There is nothing new about those trends. Indeed, the information is collected and made available. If the hon. Gentleman has ideas about how that can be disseminated more widely, we will of course be willing to consider them. Again, these are market issues, a fact which emphasises the need for the agriculture industry to take into account market changes and be involved in some of the added value and downstream distribution of products. That is the way in which agriculture should go. Many of our policies are designed to assist producers in having more of a stake in such matters.

Foot and Mouth

Steve Webb: What further plans she has to support businesses affected by the consequences of foot and mouth disease.

Henry Bellingham: What plans she has for compensating ancillary businesses hit by the foot and mouth crisis. [R]

Margaret Beckett: More and more small rural businesses are benefiting from the measures that we have introduced. More than 11,000 affected businesses have had cash benefits, either through deferral of tax payments or approval of hardship rate relief or in grant awards from the regional development agency business recovery fund. We are continuing to keep the operation of each scheme under review.

Steve Webb: I am grateful for that reply, but draw to the Minister's attention the situation in my constituency, which has more than 400 farms, several cases of foot and mouth and many businesses affected by the knock-on effects of the disease. My constituents were shocked to learn that they are not rural because other parts of the authority area have higher population densities, and "rural" is defined on the basis of the whole authority. In reviewing the schemes that she has described, will she include businesses that have suffered from foot and mouth, regardless of whether other parts of the authority have higher population densities?

Margaret Beckett: Of course I will look at the precise issue that the hon. Gentleman raises, but he will know that there is always some difficulty in defining terms in the context of such schemes. A very careful balance was struck on the proportion of authority areas that could be considered on anyone's definition to be rural, and that has been looked at several times. I am prepared to look at it again and to consider his point, but I am not undertaking that it will necessarily make all the difference as he is hoping.

Henry Bellingham: Will the right hon. Lady join me in paying tribute to the hundreds of slaughtermen and women who gave up their time to ensure that the cull was professionally carried out? Will she particularly thank those hundreds of hunt staff who gave their time and commitment, which the Government accepted only grudgingly and belatedly? Does she agree that the best way of saying thank you to those hunt staff is for her to make a firm commitment not to vote to destroy their livelihoods?

Margaret Beckett: I will of course heartily join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to slaughtermen and women or anyone else involved in the handling of this terrible outbreak, all of whom have been and, unfortunately, still are, working very long hours at what is frequently a thankless and unpleasant task. I was particularly gratified recently when I met people in the area of the most recent outbreak in Yorkshire to be told what high regard they had for the work of the staff of my Department and local authorities and of all those who have been involved. That does not always come across in media coverage, so I was very pleased to hear that and to pass it on to those who continue to work so thoroughly. As for the hon. Gentleman's final remarks, we may of course have to agree to disagree.

Jackie Lawrence: As well as considering support for rural businesses, will my right hon. Friend look at supporting charities such as the Treginnis farm for city children in my constituency? It has lost just under £100,000 as a result of foot and mouth disease, and it would be a tragedy if that organisation, which offers experience of the living countryside to children from inner-city areas, were threatened because of financial hardship arising from foot and mouth.

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an interesting and slightly unusual point. I must admit that that case had not been brought to me before. I shall certainly make some inquiries and consider whether there are means whereby, through the overall operation of the various schemes, the charity can be assisted.
	My hon. Friend will know, however, that many worthwhile organisations and small businesses are affected by the outbreak. For the vast majority, the most important thing is that we bring the outbreak under control to such an extent and come so much closer to achieving its end that their customers return to them. That will do more good than any compensation scheme.

Jon Owen Jones: Among the businesses losing out as a result of foot and mouth disease, the tourism industry has lost more than most. Will my right hon. Friend examine the sense of some of the biosecurity measures that have been used, especially those that affect the tourism industry? In April, I was banned from walking along stretches of the Pembrokeshire coastal path where there were no animals within miles, but shortly thereafter I found myself trapped behind a muck-spreader driving along the road. Clearly, the muck-spreader poses a far greater risk of passing on the disease, but the rules do not allow that to be banned.

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the impact of the difficulties on tourism and the way in which the early reaction, before we had a clear picture of where the disease had spread, resulted in the closure of some areas of the country and some footpaths which with the benefit of hindsight we can see might not have been justified by the degree of risk they presented. Now, what we are encouraging everyone to do and what we as a Department are trying to do is to ensure that the action taken is proportionate to the risk posed. My hon. Friend is right to say that the movement of vehicles and contact with and between animals are the key triggers in the spread of the disease.

Tim Yeo: Will the Secretary of State accept that many businesses, including farmers who have over-30-month-old cattle, have suffered irrecoverable losses as a direct result of foot and mouth disease for which no compensation has yet been offered? When will she complete the review of that problem which her predecessor promised in the House? When will she publish the proposals to rebuild the rural economy in the wake of foot and mouth disease to which she referred in the House last week? Does she realise that many businesses are engaged in a daily and desperate struggle for survival? They need more action, such as interest-free loans, now--not at some unspecified future date that happens to be convenient to the Government.

Margaret Beckett: Of course I admit that many people are suffering losses with which the Government are not in a position to assist, and that one particular category of those affected is made up of those who have cattle that would have gone into the over-30-months scheme but cannot currently do so. On the plans for recovery and the review, first, we are looking at those issues and will make any announcement that we can as soon as we can; secondly, there is what I would characterise as the relatively short-term farm recovery plan, which we hope to introduce in the not-too-distant future.
	In addition, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government have committed themselves to set up an independent commission to examine the longer-term context of and future for the countryside and, within it, the agriculture industry. It is extremely important that we undertake that debate and that we try to ensure that our actions in the short term to overcome the short-term difficulties experienced as a result of the outbreak do not cut across the action necessary for long-term sustainable agriculture within a context of sustainable development.

Waste Disposal

Andrew Love: What steps she is taking to develop an integrated strategy for the disposal of household waste; and if she will make a statement.

Elliot Morley: The Government set out their programme for delivering sustainable waste management in "Waste Strategy 2000", published in May. Since May, we have set statutory targets for household waste recycling and composting; published guidance on municipal waste management strategies for local authorities; found major extra funding from the spending review 2000 for local authority waste and recycling; and established the waste and resources action programme with funding of more than £40 million to overcome market barriers to re-use and recycling.

Andrew Love: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that incineration has a role to play in any waste strategy, yet considerable concerns remain about it, not least among my constituents, who look out on the largest incinerator in the United Kingdom. Those concerns are reflected in the recent court case involving Greenpeace.
	What steps is my hon. Friend taking to address those concerns? First, will there be a more robust regulatory regime for the industry? Secondly, will better emission standards be set so that we can all be reassured that there is no impact on health as a result of incineration?

Elliot Morley: I am aware that, rightly and properly, my hon. Friend has been raising his constituents' concerns. He will appreciate that the increase in capacity of the local incinerator in his constituency will be decided by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I cannot prejudge that decision, and I cannot comment whatever it may be.
	I can tell my hon. Friend, however, that new emission standards have been put in place. The latest emission data show that the annual dioxin emissions from all the UK's municipal waste incinerators have fallen from 413 g to 1.8 g since 1995. The emissions are even lower than was previously thought. They are only one fiftieth of what is currently emitted from the steel and iron industry, and only 6 per cent. of the sort of dioxins that would be emitted on bonfire night.

Tony Baldry: Many parish councils and community groups are promoting household waste recycling schemes with help from money from the landfill tax credit scheme. These councils and groups are concerned that the Government appear to want to scrap the landfill tax credit scheme. Will the Minister explain why the Government want to kill off local parish and community environmental recycling initiatives?

Elliot Morley: That is not the case. I welcome the involvement of local councils and local parish councils in recycling. It is part of our strategy and targets to increase the amount of waste that is recycled. Many councils, including my council of North Lincolnshire, have made enormous advances with such things as municipal composting. We very much welcome and encourage such involvement. We have committed a further £1.1 million over the next three years to support those initiatives.

Food Supply

Tony Lloyd: What plans she has to review the supply of food within the UK.

Margaret Beckett: The supply of food within the UK is kept under continual review by my Department as sponsors of the food industry.

Tony Lloyd: My right hon. Friend will be aware that there has been growing disquiet, certainly on the part of consumers, about the way in which we produce food. With the establishment of the Food Standards Agency, the Labour Government have gone a long way towards responding to concerns about food safety, but will my right hon. Friend take on board concerns about the cost of production methods? Is she aware of the comments of the former chief economist of the National Farmers Union, Sean Ricard, who argued recently:
	"After 50 years of subsidies, farming is the most hopelessly inefficient and uncommercial sector of the whole economy"?
	Even though this is a time of difficulty for farming businesses, will my right hon. Friend nevertheless examine whether subsidies to farming, in the form in which they have been made available in the past, have been good either for the consumer or for farmers, or whether the same money would not have been better spent on producing different kinds of work in rural economies?

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I have seen some reference to the article to which he referred. He will be aware that there is wide-ranging discussion in the agriculture industry in the United Kingdom and across the European Union about whether, as we consider reform of the common agricultural policy, we should be looking to change the direction of funding from direct support for production to support for other areas--not least the second pillar, where we are considering rural development and so on. That is exactly the sort of issue that we hope the independent commission the Government have pledged to set up will consider in relatively short order. It is an important part of the future of the countryside and of the background to the way in which we decide to produce our food in future.

John Gummer: The right hon. Lady rightly suggested that the supply of food in this country depends on farmers, both here and in the rest of the Community. How will she get the confidence of British farmers and her fellow Agriculture Ministers in the European Union, when she is the only member of that Council who is not an Agriculture Minister, and the only Minister looking after farming in the history of this country who is not a Minister of Agriculture?

Margaret Beckett: All the evidence suggests that, within both farming and the European Union--at the Agriculture Council--there is widespread understanding of the need to change the way in which we deal with agricultural support, which will mean seeing the farming industry as part of the wider food chain, which is quite proper. That may mean that people have different titles; I freely confess that I cannot recall the precise titles of all my colleagues in the Agriculture Council, but the right hon. Gentleman will find that Ministers there have a range of different responsibilities; they are not all simply Agriculture Ministers.
	As for the attitude of the farming community, it has already expressed the view that it is pleased to see the farming industry's place in the food chain recognised in the title of my Department--[Interruption.] I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman does not believe that, but I assure him that I can direct him to the people who said so.

Debra Shipley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is growing public concern about food production, particularly in relation to meat, eggs and dairy produce? Will she join me in welcoming the "Freedom Food" initiative of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which ensures that animal welfare concerns are taken into account by farms, hauliers and abattoirs? Will she also consider looking at re-targeting financial incentives, initiatives and support for farms, abattoirs and hauliers that take those issues seriously?

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Certainly, when I do my shopping, mostly at my local Co-op, I look out for the "Freedom Food" label, which is an excellent RSPCA initiative. I know that it is not the only label geared to high standards, quality and a high standard of animal care, but I very much welcome it.
	My hon. Friend raised a further important issue. Right across farming and the food industry, it is recognised that we want to aim for quality, and for labelling and information that will assure consumers of quality; we want to give them as much information as we can about where and in what circumstances the food that they eat is reared.

Malcolm Moss: Does the Secretary of State agree with her right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that the supermarkets are not playing fair? The right hon. Gentleman recently told farmers that
	"the supermarkets have pretty much got an arm-lock on you people at the moment".
	Is it not perverse to break up Milk Marque but leave the supermarkets untouched? How much does the dairy industry in this country have to decline before the Government do something?

Margaret Beckett: I am interested to learn that it is Conservative policy to take on the supermarkets; I am sure that they will be even more interested to learn that. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Competition Commission looked at those matters recently. Although it concluded that the industry was broadly competitive, it identified a number of practices about which it had concerns and which it felt adversely affected some suppliers and smaller retailers. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the commission recommended that the best way to deal with those issues was to have a binding code of practice for the larger supermarkets. Although that is a matter for the DTI rather than my Department, I anticipate that we shall see such a code of practice in the near future.

Alan Simpson: When the Secretary of State takes on board the increasing consumer demands about food accountability, will she bear in mind the fact that more than 60 per cent. of the food currently imported into the United Kingdom could be grown here, and look at the way in which we subsidise and support food production to strengthen local markets and local accountability? If we do that, we will reduce pollution and congestion in towns, strengthen the links between producer and consumer, shorten food miles and give a boost to the organic food market, which desperately needs support for agriculture rather than agri-business.

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend will know that the Government have increased substantially the amount of support that we give to producers who move into organic production, and that there is widespread interest in promoting local markets and in encouraging local supply that is specifically geared and identified. That is all part of the direction of the current debate on these matters, and the Government certainly welcome it.

Foot and Mouth (Devon)

Nick Harvey: If she will make a statement on progress in eliminating foot and mouth disease in Devon.

Elliot Morley: Significant progress has been made towards eliminating foot and mouth disease in Devon. Since the upsurge of the disease in March and the first half of April, the number of cases has fallen to just one or two a week. Visits and tests are continuing in order to ensure that areas are free of the disease.

Nick Harvey: I welcome the fact that the number of incidents seems to have tailed off at present, but does the Minister understand that the farming industry in Devon is in a terrible state and that it is still reeling from the effects of the disease? Last week, the Department announced with something of a fanfare that some restrictions on movements would be lifted. Does the Minister understand that farmers have been beating a path to my door and that of the National Farmers Union offices, reeling from the news that they will now have to pay for veterinary inspection? What advice would the Minister give to Mr. Francis Courtenay, a farmer in the neighbouring village to mine? He has had no significant income since foot and mouth disease broke out in February, but now has 13 lambs that he wants to sell. He has now been told that he will have to pay £150 for the veterinary inspection and clean-up. That cost will work out at more than £10 a lamb, when each animal is likely to bring in only £35 or £36. Surely the Department understands that the farming industry is in a desperate state. What possible justification can there be for landing that additional financial burden on farmers at this time?

Elliot Morley: Of course I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point about the costs being borne by his constituent. We are sensitive to that. However, the changes in movement restrictions have been welcomed by the livestock sector, as they have begun to bring some normality back to the markets. That is important, but changing the restrictions requires care, as moving livestock still entails enormous risks. That is why veterinary inspections have to take place.
	I appreciate that there is a problem with regard to the costs borne by individual farmers, although some of those costs can be shared. So far, the Government have paid £1 billion in compensation for livestock that has had to be culled, and the total costs of the FMD outbreak are certainly in excess of £2 billion. However, I shall certainly take into account the point that the hon. Gentleman made.

Fuel Poverty

David Amess: If she will make a statement on the targets for the elimination of fuel poverty.

Margaret Beckett: The goal of the Government is to seek an end to the problem of fuel poverty. The first target is to ensure that by 2010 no vulnerable household need risk ill health owing to a cold home. We will then seek to widen the focus to include those healthy adult householders in fuel poverty.

David Amess: I fully accept the work done by the Minister for the Environment in trying to end fuel poverty, but during the consultation period a number of organisations objected to the definitions used in setting targets. They are especially worried that the term "gross income" rather than "disposable income" is to be used to determine which households are vulnerable. The right hon. Lady will probably answer that the use of either term would help to end fuel poverty, and an announcement on the matter is expected in November. Before that announcement is made, will she consider dropping the controversial term "gross income", and replacing it with "disposable income"?

Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that the Government's goal is to eradicate fuel poverty, however that is defined. I take the point that some people consider that a different definition that included more people would be beneficial, but the Government have given a massive undertaking. It represents a huge step forward that no previous Government have been prepared to take, and it is necessary to proceed step by step.
	I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members will keep up the pressure on the matter, and I applaud them for it. However, rather than quarrelling about the definitions--which the Government will keep under review--it seems to me that the main thing is to support the project and ensure that it has the effect that we all want it to have.

Animal Movements

Nick Palmer: If she will proceed with restrictions on repeated long-distance transport of farm animals.

Elliot Morley: The most recent Agriculture Council unanimously adopted a resolution instructing the European Commission to bring forward early proposals for changes to the current rules. That will form the basis for change, including the possibility of reducing the number and duration of long-distance journeys of farm animals to slaughter.

Nick Palmer: Does my hon. Friend agree that there has been widespread concern about the secondary market in farm animals, in which intermediate dealers buy animals and take them from market to market, seeking the best price? Does he also agree that that has been a significant factor in the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease?

Elliot Morley: I certainly agree with the last point. There is no doubt that the recent growth in dealers' movement of animals around livestock markets has contributed to the wide spread of foot and mouth. There were approximately 2 million sheep movements in the three weeks before foot and mouth was identified in this country. We are considering proposals for dealing with that, and we are consulting the livestock industry. I am pleased that the Council of Ministers has decided to examine long- distance transport, including vehicle design, standards, enforcement and even the justification for it.

Nicholas Winterton: Does the Minister accept that farm livestock is transported over long distances in recent times because of the rapid reduction in the number of small abattoirs? That is the direct result of the huge cost imposed on them by regulation from government, not least the EU. Will the Government do something to re-establish small abattoirs? Many have closed in my area. We have one left--a good, small, family-owned abattoir. If the Government act, they can claim that they are doing something sensible about repeated long-distance transport of farm animals.

Elliot Morley: We are taking action on that. We have already announced in the rural White Paper support of £8 million for small abattoirs. However, the position is a lot more complicated than the hon. Gentleman suggests. In many cases, long-distance movements in the United Kingdom mean driving animals past slaughterhouses and taking them to slaughterhouses at the other end of the country. That happens for all sorts of reasons, not least those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) in relation to dealers moving animals from livestock market to livestock market.
	We must tackle many complications, and the decline of small slaughterhouses, though important, is only one of them.

Rural Diversification

Ben Chapman: If she will make a statement on her Department's plans for rural diversification.

Elliot Morley: In the last Parliament, we announced several measures aimed at supporting the rural economy and encouraging it to adapt to changing market conditions.
	The rural White Paper "Our Countryside: the Future--A Fair Deal for Rural England", which was published at the end of last year, contains several initiatives to help support a thriving rural economy.

Ben Chapman: Does my hon. Friend agree that although help and information are available for diversification through the regional development agencies, the countryside agencies, structural funds and other sources, constraints often exist in planning law, regulations and guidance? That is often the principal constraint on diversification. Will my hon. Friend discuss the issue and those constraints with his colleagues in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions?

Elliot Morley: Yes, we are doing that. My hon. Friend makes an important point. In some cases, planning restrictions have been unduly restrictive in relation to on-farm diversification. We do not want to exempt applicants from planning controls on vehicle movements, noise, emissions, smells. After all, planning controls exist to protect people. Nevertheless, we want to encourage diversification, and we are taking steps to do that.

David Curry: Does the Minister appreciate that rural diversification can be helped by relatively small amounts of start-up capital? Does he know that, yesterday, in Skipton, the Craven Trust was set up to collect voluntary contributions to help people who have been affected by the foot and mouth outbreak? The Government funds that would match that money expire in two days' time. Will he ensure that areas where foot and mouth disease has broken out recently in the cycle are not disadvantaged in comparison with those that unfortunately suffered it much earlier?

Elliot Morley: The right hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point, and I can give him an undertaking that we will look sympathetically at the case that he has made. I should add that the rural enterprise scheme, which is part of the English rural development programme, provides support for rural businesses. The regional development agencies also provide support designed to help rural businesses to recover. I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making, and we shall look carefully at that matter.

Business of the House

Angela Browning: Will the Leader of the House please give the business for the coming week?

Robin Cook: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 2 July--Second Reading of the Homelessness Bill.
	Tuesday 3 July--Second Reading of the European Communities (Finance) Bill.
	Wednesday 4 July--Second Reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.
	Thursday 5 July--Motions relating to the Senior Salaries Review Board report and related issues.
	Motion to amend the Standing Orders relating to Select Committees.
	Friday 6 July--The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the following week will be:
	Monday 9 July--Second Reading of the Export Control Bill.
	Tuesday 10 July--Second Reading of the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill.
	Wednesday 11 July--Consideration in Committee of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill (1st Day).
	At 10 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
	Thursday 12 July--Opposition Day [1st Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition Motion; the subject to be announced.
	Friday 13 July--Debate on small firms on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for July will be as follows:
	Thursday 5 July--Debate on the role of the Department for Work and Pensions.
	Thursday 12 July--Debate on the report from the Agriculture Committee on organic farming.
	Thursday 19 July--Debate on youth justice.
	The House will also wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, it will be proposed that the House rise for the summer recess at the end of business on Friday 20 July and return on Monday 15 October.

Angela Browning: I thank the Leader of the House for the business statement. Given the concern on both sides of the House about the current political situation in Northern Ireland, will he, as a matter of urgency, ask the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make a statement to the House on Monday? We are all aware of the discussions that the Prime Minister is having today, and the issues that will come up in the next few days in relation to the future of the political situation in Northern Ireland are of great concern.
	Will the Leader of the House also ask a Minister to come to the Dispatch Box next week to confirm, or at least dismiss, the reports that we have read with great alarm in the press this week about the imposition of VAT on residential care home charges? This matter affects all of us as constituency MPs, and clearly has an important read-across for the public sector finances in relation to social services departments. It will also be a matter of great concern to individuals who are either paying for their own residential care or planning and making provision to do so.
	The Leader of the House will also be aware that, in the concluding debate on the Gracious Speech yesterday, the Home Secretary, in answer to some very probing questions from the Conservative Benches, confirmed the new calculation by which the Government record asylum applications and the numbers of those denied asylum here. This matter has never been debated on the Floor of the House or announced in the House. We would welcome an opportunity to hear why the formulae have been changed, and to hear how the calculations are now made.
	In giving the business for the coming two weeks, for which I am grateful, the Leader of the House announced that Wednesday 11 July will be the first day of consideration in Committee on the Floor of the House of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. Now that the right hon. Gentleman has announced the possible date of the House rising for the summer recess, can he confirm exactly the number of days on which that Bill will be considered in Committee on the Floor of the House?

Robin Cook: On the question of Northern Ireland, the whole House will understand the gravity of the circumstances and, whatever our party, we all hope that the Prime Minister, on his visit today, is able to make progress with those who are party to the disagreement over the Good Friday agreement. I can assure hon. Members that the House will be kept fully aware and informed of the developments.
	At this stage, it would not be helpful to any of us to commit ourselves to making a statement on Monday, but I assure the hon. Lady that the Government are fully seized not only of the gravity of the situation, but of the importance of keeping the House fully informed, in the hope that we can best preserve a cross-party approach.
	As regards VAT on care home costs, the hon. Lady is right to draw attention to the decision of a VAT tribunal in an individual case. The Government's position is clear: we do not believe that vulnerable people provided with care in residential homes should have to face VAT or be subject to it. There will be an appeal against the judgment. Whatever the outcome, we shall ensure that those in residential homes do not have to face increased costs as a result of the ruling.
	On the asylum statistics, I am assured that there has been no change in the practice, but if the hon. Lady is in some confusion as to what is the practice or when it was introduced, we shall take every possible care to disabuse her and make it plain that there has been no change under this Administration in the basis on which such figures are counted.
	Lastly, the House will of course have a full opportunity to debate the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, and we shall ensure that a motion to that effect is before the House when it considers Second Reading next week.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: My right hon. Friend knows that setting up the Select Committees is tremendously important, and we welcome the arrival on the Vote of the suggestion that we should take forward that essential part of our work as quickly as possible. May I have his assurance that Her Majesty's Government intend to get the Select Committees up and running before the break, so that they may not only decide on the subjects that they want to consider, but be able to gather information when the House resumes in the autumn?

Robin Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments, and I hope that I commit no indiscretion by saying that I consulted her and some of her colleagues in considering what proposal we should table on the Standing Orders. That motion is on today's Order Paper and, apart from the modest question of the size of a Select Committee, they will find that the recommendations that they put to us are faithfully reflected there.
	I take it that my hon. Friend was expressing the view that the Select Committees should be up and running before the recess. As I told the House last Thursday, that is my intention and the Government's wish. We want to get them up and running and we intend to try to achieve that by the week commencing 16 July. If we succeed, that will be the shortest time in any Parliament in which Select Committees have been set up. I stress again that that is a tight timetable that requires two separate motions and debates in the House, so I shall require co-operation from all parts of the House if we are to meet it.

Paul Tyler: May I press the Leader of the House a little further? He said last night and again today that he will use his best endeavours, but can he give us a guarantee that he has had the assurance of full co-operation from the Conservative party? He will recall that, after the 1997 election, when there was another hiatus on the Conservative Front Bench, there was a long delay before the House was able to return to its normal practice of scrutinising the work of Departments and, indeed, other matters of Government concern. That represented a considerable problem in respect of Parliament carrying out its business.
	In particular, does the Leader of the House have an assurance that the Standards and Privileges Committee will be set up in that time scale? There is important unfinished business, as he is only too well aware. I draw his attention to the fact, of which I am sure he is aware, that Standing Orders provide that, while the domestic and departmental Select Committees require nomination from the Committee of Selection, any Member or any group of Members can nominate for other, important Select Committees, such as the Standards and Privileges Committee, the Environmental Audit Committee and the Public Accounts Committee. If Front Benchers cannot agree by 16 July--that was the assurance that the right hon. Gentleman gave us--perhaps other Members will take matters into their own hands. That, I hasten to say, is not a threat; it is just a promise.

Robin Cook: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about its being not a threat but a promise. I am sure, however, that what he said has been heard on both sides of the House.
	It is not for me to speak for the official Opposition, nor would I seek to do so; but I do not think I am misrepresenting the position if I say that they have been fully co-operative in trying to ensure that we make reasonable progress with the setting up of Select Committees. I hope that, in offering that support and making businesslike progress, they are carrying with them all Members, not just Front Benchers.

Andrew MacKinlay: All?

Robin Cook: I am assured that they are, so we can now relax a little.
	The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) asked about the Standards and Privileges Committee. It is, of course, a very important Committee. I think it would be rather odd if we sought to set up Select Committees that did not include one dealing with standards and privileges, and I hope we shall be able to include it in the overall package.

David Winnick: Are we being softened up for the non-renewal of the contract of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards? What is wrong with her being zealous in the performance of her duties?
	Does my right hon. Friend recall that, in past Parliaments, we campaigned--before and during the "sleaze" allegations--for far tighter controls over matters relating to finance and Members of Parliament? The steps that were taken were very important. For heaven's sake, are we really going back to those former days? The Parliamentary Commissioner has performed her duties correctly. Why on earth should her contract not be renewed?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We do require a zealous Commissioner, and we will ensure that the House is served by a zealous Commissioner. As my hon. Friend says, the present Commissioner has been extremely zealous in performing her duties.
	I deprecate the speculation that I have seen in the press about the future of Ms Filkin. I do not consider it in any way helpful to Ms Filkin or to her authority; nor does it serve any of the interests of the House. For the record, the House of Commons Commission has not even met in the current Parliament, far less reached any view on what it may or may not do when that contract becomes open for renewal--next year, not this year. I urge all Members not to rise to the bait that the media offer them to speculate.

Nicholas Soames: Will the right hon. Gentleman see whether it is possible to organise a debate on the genuinely serious position of some of my elderly constituents who find themselves bed-blocked in hospitals? In the Princess Royal hospital in mid-Sussex, 20 per cent. of beds are blocked at any one time. People are having to spend nights and days on trolleys in the accident and emergency unit before they can get into a ward. All that is because the Government have redistributed--in effect, stolen--£15 million of social services money in order to distribute it to other parts of the United Kingdom, leaving West Sussex very short.
	Will the right hon. Gentleman make time for debate on a matter that affects Members on a much wider scale than that of my constituency? Bed-blocking is a real problem, and is causing great hardship.

Robin Cook: The hon. Gentleman can express his views in many quarters about the standard spending assessment, which is basically what he is complaining about, but these have never been easy judgments under any Government. It is not easy to provide an outcome that is fair to all local authorities--authorities of differing character, and with differing requirements. I shall, however, happily draw the hon. Gentleman's comments to the attention of the Department of Health and encourage it to respond.

Julie Morgan: I am sure my right hon. Friend knows how pleased many Members are that the Queen's Speech includes reference to a Bill to promote women's representation in politics. [Interruption.] How soon could such a Bill be introduced? Given that elections to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly are due to take place in 2003, selections for candidates are likely to start over the next 12 months. It would be helpful for all political parties if the legislation were in place by then.

Robin Cook: I see that the Bill will be opposed, so that will be a factor in the decision of the business managers as to when we introduce it. I am fully aware of the urgency of the issue, and as a Scottish Member I understand my hon. Friend's point about the desirability of getting this measure in place in good time for the elections in 2003. That is why we included a reference to it in the first Queen's Speech of this Parliament, and we shall try to make diligent progress with it--in so far as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) will allow us.

Ann Winterton: The right hon. Gentleman may not be aware of the fact that the last full debate in Government time in this Chamber on their national drugs strategy took place on 2 July 1999. Bearing in mind the recent changes introduced by the Government, whereby responsibilities have been transferred from the Cabinet Office to the Home Office, and the United Kingdom anti-drugs co-ordinator is no more, retaining only an international remit, does the right hon. Gentleman feel that a debate in this Chamber on the national drugs strategy, with all its implications, is long overdue?

Robin Cook: The House has just completed the debates on the Queen's Speech, during which a full day was available to discuss home affairs and there was also a full day on health issues. The Secretaries of State of those Departments took part in those debates. The issue that the hon. Lady raises will continue to be a serious and grave problem throughout this Parliament. During yesterday's debate, a number of hon. Members drew attention with force and vigour to the severity of the problem, and I assure the hon. Lady that she will have a number of occasions during this Parliament to ventilate her concerns.

Derek Foster: In warmly welcoming my right hon. Friend to his new post, may I add my voice to those calling for the speedy setting up of Select Committees? Does he agree with me that he and the House have a unique opportunity to make an historic advance in parliamentary democracy by strengthening Select Committees? Will he give us an early opportunity to debate the Liaison Committee's and the Hansard Society's reports on strengthening Select Committees?

Robin Cook: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support of our progress in setting up the Select Committees. Members from all parties have urged on me that the important, urgent priority is to get the Committees set up, but other questions need to be addressed. That is why I stressed last Thursday that the Modernisation Committee is among those that I want set up at an early date.

Eric Forth: Oh no!

Robin Cook: The right hon. Gentleman can be relied on to resist anything that smacks of the modern era, and to take our processes back to something more akin to the Gillray cartoon era, from which he comes. Most of the House want such a Committee to be set up and to examine some of the issues that my right hon. Friend raises. I shall be speaking at the Hansard Society conference in two weeks' time.

Eric Forth: So will I.

Robin Cook: Indeed, I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman will be speaking at the conference, and I look forward with great interest to seeing which of its recommendations he welcomes.

Archy Kirkwood: Does the Leader of the House acknowledge that there will need to be an early motion to create the Committee of Selection if his timetable for the creation of departmental Select Committees is to be met? Will he confirm that if there is any delay or exception taken in the early stages of the creation of the Committee of Selection, that could prejudice his timetable?
	Will the Leader also say a word about the business motion that he has helpfully tabled for 5 July? Is it tight enough to ensure that if the motion were amended--for instance, some of us would like the number currently suggested for the Education and Skills Committee to be increased from 11 to 17--there would be no danger of the outcome of any such motion prejudicing the timetable for the creation of the other departmental Select Committees?

Robin Cook: The hon. Gentleman is right to outline again the pitfalls that lie along the way in order to secure the tight timetable that is necessarily set by the date of the rising of the House. I hope that all hon. Members will take his point on board.
	On the business motion for next Thursday, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will ensure that those who wish to table amendments to the current motion on Standing Orders will have an opportunity to do so, and if they are selected, to have them voted on.
	The motion that I drafted and placed on the Order Paper fully reflects consultations with the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Liaison Committee. I hope that, in the spirit of making good progress, what we have tabled will find consensus in many quarters of the House.

Louise Ellman: Will my right hon. Friend indicate when the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs will meet? Does he accept that there is growing unrest about regional disparities and growing concern about the lack of accountability for regional quangos? Will he accept that there is unease about responsibility for the regions being spread across at least three Departments, and that that means that it is essential for the Committee, for which so many hon. Members fought so hard, to be reconvened at the earliest opportunity?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to an important policy dimension. The Government have placed particular importance on regional policy and that is why we want to ensure that our decisions are properly scrutinised. I cannot give a date for when the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs will meet. I understand that it met only once in the previous Session. I hope that it can meet early enough in this Session to guarantee that it can meet again this Session.

Anne McIntosh: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new position. Will he use this opportunity to break with the practice that has been established over the past four years--of Ministers not answering the questions put to them? I should like to pray in aid an answer given to a question that I tabled to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to which I received a reply from the Financial Secretary on a much narrower point.
	My question was on the representations that the Chancellor had received on the taxation of company cars and the assessment he had made of the impact of that taxation on company car use. I wonder whether the Leader of the House will agree to an early debate on the issue, because I have received many representations from employees who are lamenting the fact that they will lose the tax advantage. Regrettably, the reply I received was on the narrow point of the new CO 2 emissions-based company car tax, which was not what the question I tabled was about. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that we will have a debate on the issue and that the Government will answer the questions put to them, oral and written?

Robin Cook: I have to confess that I am not familiar with the question and answer to which the hon. Lady referred. There are remedies for her to pursue if she feels that her initial question was not answered properly. The House has many opportunities to debate tax matters. The hon. Lady may wish to lobby her party, as she will be aware that, during the business statement, I announced a day on which the Opposition can choose the issues they wish to raise.

Andrew MacKinlay: The Leader of the House has announced what is, in effect, a three-month closure of Parliament. I realise that in his early weeks as Leader of the House he cannot alter what has, unhappily, become a pattern over so many years. Will he look ahead to next year and discuss through the usual channels and with the Modernisation Committee the possibility of having a more even distribution of the parliamentary calendar, so that scrutiny and accountability can go on in this place even if the Government do not want to consider legislation? We should sit not just when we are considering Bills, but to provide scrutiny. Over the summer, will he consider an innovation and ask Ministers, with the support of the Prime Minister, to produce a report, on our return, on the activities of Departments over the closure so that the stewardship of those Departments over the summer months can be the first business to be considered by Select Committees?

Robin Cook: It is for the Select Committees to decide what business they wish to pursue. I am sure that my hon. Friend will pursue his suggestion with whatever Select Committee he chooses to serve on. For the record, the recess that has been announced is 86 days long, which is almost the average for the past eight or nine years--it has varied between 81 and 87 days. In the first Session after the 1992 election, which Conservative Members will remember was the last election they won, the recess was 94 days long.
	I agree that it would make sense for us to have a rolling programme of legislation. It is one of the issues that I want to see addressed early in the Modernisation Committee, and I hope that we can get a smoother process than the sudden fits and starts with which we conduct our business at present within a 12-month period.

Nicholas Winterton: I warmly welcome what appears to be the co-operation in all parts of the House over the re-establishment of Select Committees. The sooner they are set up, the better for the House and its role in monitoring the Executive and holding the Government of the day to account.
	However, I point out to the Leader of the House in a friendly fashion, following the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), that he failed to respond to the question by the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), a past Labour Chief Whip, who asked whether the Leader of the House would find time in the near future for a debate on the Liaison Committee's report, "Shifting the Balance: Unfinished Business." The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland did not ask about the Modernisation Committee; he asked about the Liaison Committee. Does the Leader of the House not accept that that Liaison Committee report is very important, and may even go well beyond anything that the Modernisation Committee might do in due course?

Robin Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his warm welcome for the speed with which we intend to proceed with setting up the Select Committees. On the Liaison Committee's report, which I have read with interest, he will be aware that when we met--I hope that I do not cause him embarrassment by saying that I have consulted him--I said that I would want to take a fresh look at some of these issues in the autumn. I would like to do so with his advice and consultation, and with that of anyone who serves on the Modernisation Committee with us. At an appropriate time, we can examine these matters on the Floor.

Helen Jackson: Does my right hon. Friend agree, further to the answer that he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), that now is the time to look at the date for the start of the summer recess in 2002? Does he agree that one recommendation of the Modernisation Committee relating to the carry-over of Bills would help him in that; and that the electors of this country have just elected a Parliament for a parliamentary term, not for a year-on-year dogfight that finishes each October?

Robin Cook: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the Government have been elected for a full parliamentary term, and with every intention of serving their full parliamentary term. I was therefore disappointed by comments suggesting that matters that were not in the Queen's Speech were not going to happen. The Queen's Speech is for one year; this Government are here for a full parliamentary term.
	Much as I would want to help my hon. Friend, I believe that I would be in difficulty in being tempted into announcing now the date of the summer recess in 2002. I would hope to get just a little more satisfaction in the House for having announced the date for 2001.

Vincent Cable: Following the Government's announcement that they are embarking on a major review of energy futures, including a possible enhanced role for nuclear power, will the relevant Minister make a statement to the House on the terms of reference of that major review, so that we can be reassured that there will be a genuine level playing field, given the very powerful vested interests in that field?

Robin Cook: It is very important that any examination of that subject should cover all the issues, and that all the various vested interests should be properly assessed. However, I would not really encourage the House to seek a statement on a review when it has just been announced. It seems to me much more logical that any statement should come towards the end of the review rather than at the start.
	As I have repeatedly emphasised to the House, I have encouraged the setting up of the Select Committees as soon as possible. I would imagine that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry might well wish to consider the energy review as one of its urgent items of business.

Syd Rapson: It is now a year since the unfortunate outbreak of anti-paedophile riots in my constituency. It is also three weeks since the longstanding leader of Hampshire county council was convicted of being a paedophile; we also have a city councillor held on far more serious charges, on the same basis. May we hold a debate on that issue, to ensure that checks are far more stringent and that anyone involved in this evil is precluded from public office?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend raises an important issue and one that must be of grave concern to his constituents and the local media. I fully understand why he has taken this opportunity to raise it on the Floor of the House. I encourage him to explore the avenues that are open to him to ensure that he can deal with the matter in greater detail, perhaps in an Adjournment debate or in Westminster Hall.

Eric Forth: May we please have an urgent debate entitled, "The Great Census Cock-up"? Is it not time that we had a thorough explanation of why a procedure that has taken place efficiently for hundreds of years cannot be conducted by this Government? Is it a conspiracy, or is it just sheer grotesque inefficiency that we are no longer able efficiently and accurately to count the number of people in this country?

Robin Cook: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that the census is still being examined--[Hon. Members: "The right hon. Gentleman."] I am sorry if I demoted the right hon. Gentleman and will take great care not to do it again. He is well aware that the results of the census are being collated and will be available, as they usually are, in the fullness of time. In the meantime, if he wishes to pursue the matter he has a remedy through both oral and written questions and I suggest he takes it up that way.

Gordon Prentice: Did my right hon. Friend see the story in yesterday's edition of the Financial Times, under the headline
	"Blair and Kennedy to press on with Lib-Lab alliance"?
	The years have mellowed me and I am much more relaxed about these things than I used to be, but will my right hon. Friend be innovative and forward looking and perhaps arrange for regular reports to the House on the nature of the discussions that take place between the Prime Minister and the so-called Leader of the Opposition?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend's closing line was perhaps his most provocative and plainly demonstrated that he has not in any way mellowed with his years in the House. He calls for regular reporting. From my recollection of the previous Parliament that issue was not underventilated or underdebated in the House. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister looks forward with confidence to being asked about the issue frequently and to exploring it in this Parliament as much as in the last. I would tell my hon. Friend one thing: whatever may pass between the Cabinet and Front-Bench Liberal Democrat Members, it has broadly been my experience that one does not have to wait long to hear it fully reported--often in even greater detail than I remember from the meetings I attended.

Teddy Taylor: Would the Leader of the House look again into the request for a debate on asylum seeker statistics, bearing in mind the fact that the decision to regard a family of six as one unit on arrival and as six on departure is not only a change of policy but a statistical fiddle and the sort of practice that one would not expect from a decent democratic Government?

Robin Cook: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will ensure that a full statement is made to the House--I imagine it would be a written statement setting out the basis for the figures. Let us be clear that in the past year the Government made much rapid progress to ensure that decisions are taken more quickly and that those asylum seekers who are turned down are removed more quickly. If the hon. Gentleman had attended the Chamber yesterday, he would have heard my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary express his commitment to remove 2,500 per month within the near future. At the same time, we are ensuring that genuine asylum seekers get their decision more quickly and have the doubt about their position removed. We have achieved faster decisions, quicker removal and quicker acceptance of genuine asylum seekers than was achieved by the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported. I urge him to welcome that fact rather than to continue to complain about the figures.

John Cryer: May we have a debate on the vexed question of mixed-sex wards? The Oldchurch and Harold Wood hospitals in the borough that I represent--they are not in my constituency, but they are used by my constituents--still have such wards, which is causing much offence and upset, despite the policy pursued by the Department of Health and the promises that the trust made to me.
	On another matter, the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill was the first intended extension of the business vote since 1832 and it was promoted by a right hon. Gentleman who has since retired. It was supported by the Tories in their droves and was brilliantly sabotaged by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that we will never see that Bill again?

Robin Cook: If I may, I shall respond first to the very serious issue that my hon. Friend raises about mixed-sex wards. As he is aware, the Government's policy is that mixed-sex wards should be eliminated by 2002, and the last report showed that we are 93 per cent. on target to achieve that. I entirely accept that that is cold comfort to those hospitals that my hon. Friend mentioned which have been unable to achieve that progress.
	I understand that the difficulty at Oldchurch hospital is that refurbishing the wards to provide single-sex accommodation is regarded as inappropriate pending the very large development that is about to take place. I am informed that the hospital's managers are considering other management practices to secure that objective, and I assure my hon. Friend that the Government will continue to press them to deliver on our commitment.

John Wilkinson: On reflection, does the Leader of the House consider that his response to the perfectly sensible request of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) in relation to Northern Ireland was adequate? Was it adequate merely to say that he would keep the House aware of developments in the Province? Is he not profoundly concerned by the turn of events there? Is it not the case that the community has been polarised and that there is the potential for a breakdown in democratic institutions, caused by the failure of Her Majesty's Government's policy, especially on the decommissioning of terrorist weapons? Can we have a full day's debate on that grave subject, which is of concern to the whole kingdom?

Robin Cook: In fairness to myself, I must say that I expressed my concern at the gravity of the situation, and I do not think any hon. Member on either side of the House fairly listening to what I said would accuse me of not recognising that gravity or the deep concern felt on both sides of the House. I said at the time that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is, at this very moment, in Northern Ireland engaged in discussions on such matters. It would not be right for the House to jeopardise my right hon. Friend's efforts by anticipating the outcome, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that in the event of the negative outcome that he anticipates, the House will have many opportunities to examine the issues.

Margaret Moran: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Keetch Cottage children's hospice, on the edge of Luton, has recently discovered that it has a £1 million deficit, thus jeopardising the palliative care for children in Luton and the surrounding area? I am sure that he will want to join me in offering thanks both to all those in the hospice movement who do so much for the care of our children in very difficult circumstances and to the community, which contributes the vast majority of resources to keep local hospices going, but will he please agree to hold an early debate on Government funding for hospices? That is necessary, given that hospices are saving the national health service considerable amounts of money and that they are so vital to patient care and medical services.

Robin Cook: I fully appreciate the enormous value of the hospice movement, which provides particular support not just to the patients for whom it cares, but to all the relatives of those patients at a time of difficult crisis. That is why a commitment to the hospice movement was very strong in the NHS plan that the Government set out two months ago. I am very sorry to hear of the situation that my hon. Friend describes. I assure her that the Government and, I believe, all hon. Members support the work of those in hospices, and I ask her to convey our support to the staff of the hospice that she mentions.

Julian Lewis: May we have a statement next week from the Minister of State, Cabinet Office about the code of ministerial conduct and, in particular, about which of its provisions allows for the sacking of a competent junior Home Office Minister simply because he insisted on telling the truth about a telephone call from one of the Prime Minister's Cabinet cronies?

Robin Cook: It would be inappropriate for me to enter into a commentary on why particular decisions were made during the last reshuffle; otherwise, I might detain the House much longer than it would have anticipated. My hon. Friend, to whom the hon. Gentleman refers, did an excellent job at the Home Office. Indeed, that was reflected in many of the statements that were made yesterday, and it is for my hon. Friend to add to that if he wishes, but he made a speech of great dignity and utility in yesterday's debate on home affairs. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion is wide of the mark.

Mark Fisher: I, too, warmly welcome what the Leader of the House has had to say about establishing the Select Committees before we rise. I infer that he accepts that both sides of the House want to return to the Liaison Committee report. The House accepts that, in the interests of speed, the Select Committees will be established on the existing basis, and will remain dominated by the Government through the Whips Office. Does my right hon. Friend accept that Select Committees are parliamentary Committees, not Committees of the Government, so it is wholly illogical that their membership should be determined by the Government, by whatever means? It is wrong for anyone to appoint their own scrutineers. Does he accept that case in principle?

Robin Cook: The process by which Labour Members will be chosen to serve on the Select Committees is set out in the rules of the parliamentary Labour party. Decisions will be taken by the PLP, not the Chief Whip. If my hon. Friend wishes to serve on one of the Select Committees that we have nominated on the Order Paper today, he will receive an invitation in the Whip this Thursday. That democratic process through the PLP is to be commended, and I hope that all parties in the House will follow a similar democratic process.

Richard Allan: The Leader of the House may have heard the news this morning of yet another major Government computerisation project running into serious problems, this time affecting the courts service and the criminal justice system. Given that such difficulties are clearly a cross-departmental problem affecting the whole of government, will the Leader of the House look for an early opportunity for his colleagues from the newly beefed-up Cabinet Office to come to the House to debate the Government's information technology strategy?

Robin Cook: I cannot say that I am aware of the case to which the hon. Gentleman draws my attention, but I shall report it to my right hon. and learned Friend and he may respond to him.

Joan Walley: I welcome the Government's announcement today about family- friendly and flexible employment policies. Concern has been expressed, however, about the way in which employment agencies treat their workers, those workers employment rights and their access to employment tribunals, especially in relation to proposed changes to the award of costs. Does my right hon. Friend intend to make any time available to discuss employment relations policies in the near future?

Robin Cook: I cannot hold out the prospect of any immediate debate on that issue, but it is one of great importance and my hon. Friend is right to raise it. I hope that the House and its Committees will find opportunities to look into it. There will be regular opportunities to examine the responsible Ministers.

John Bercow: I congratulate the Leader of the House on his well-deserved and long overdue advancement within the ranks of the Government. Can we please have an early debate or a statement on the provision of beta interferon for the treatment of multiple sclerosis? Given the evidence that the drug is likely to be effective only if used early in the course of the disease, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society estimates that hundreds of people risk permanent disablement if they are denied access to the drug during the extended National Institute for Clinical Excellence appraisal, especially as that appraisal has been the subject of an enormous amount of cogitation over two years. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the very least that sufferers and their representatives are entitled to expect from the Government is a comprehensive statement or debate on the matter before we rise for the summer recess?

Robin Cook: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the issue has been aired repeatedly in the House and in the press. He is a knowledgeable Member who does his research well, and he will be aware that the central problem is that NICE, which was set up to advise us on the use of drugs, has not advised the use of this drug in the NHS. Nevertheless, I shall happily convey to my colleagues in the Department of Health the fact that the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter again so that they can bear that in mind in their future considerations.

Gwyn Prosser: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an urgent debate on safety at sea following the damning report published this morning by the chief inspector of marine accidents? It links the astonishing decline in safety standards at sea with what it describes as
	"the lengths that some shippers will go to make a profit."
	It goes on to say that of the 1,453 accidents reported in United Kingdom waters last year, just 3 per cent. were investigated. Will my right hon. Friend find time to discuss that urgent problem?

Robin Cook: I heard about the report this morning and understand my hon. Friend's concern. Transparent reporting and full investigation of what goes wrong is vital to the confidence of those who use our merchant navy and to ensuring that such events are not repeated. I shall happily draw his comments to the attention of the relevant Minister and perhaps also to that of the Deputy Prime Minister who, as my hon. Friend knows, takes a close interest in such matters.

David Heath: I warmly welcome what the Leader of the House said about VAT on care homes, but does he recognise the accelerating crisis in long-term care? That was demonstrated by the closure of yet another home in my constituency last week, which distressed residents of the home and their relatives. Will the right hon. Gentleman find time to debate the Government's strategy for long-term care, in particular how they propose to ensure that local social services departments have the cash available to house people properly when they most need it?

Robin Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for welcoming my response to the tribunal ruling on VAT. He is right: the provision of long-term care is a worry to an increasing number of our constituents, and that problem will continue because of demographic changes. That is why we made the commitment that long-term care will be an important priority for the national health service plan that we are developing and why we have secured the basis on which free nursing care will be provided from October for those who require it in the long term. I will be surprised if this Session proceeds much further without a suitable opportunity for us to examine such matters. Health legislation is proposed in the Queen's Speech and we will introduce that as soon as possible.

Alan Simpson: My right hon. Friend will be as appalled as everyone else about the rioting in recent months in Burnley, Bradford and Oldham and the specific ways in which the National Front and the British National party have targeted areas to foment racial divides that split and devastate communities. Will he arrange for the House to debate the conditions of squalor and poverty and the shroud of hopelessness and despair that affect those communities and scar the urban landscape across Britain? They form the fundamental challenge that the House has to address if it is to confront the poisonous politics of the far right. Will my right hon. Friend give us the opportunity to set out specific ways in which we intend to do that and to build the unified, cohesive, inclusive and multiracial communities in which I hope most of us want to live?

Robin Cook: I am happy to endorse my hon. Friend's concern, which is fully shared by those on the Front Bench. Indeed, in yesterday's debate, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred in strong terms to the recent riots. There was also an exchange in the House when my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) asked a private notice question. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) that the only people who gain from violence and destruction are extremists such as those in the BNP, who want to turn racism to their own poisonous political objectives. It is important that we defeat them. I agree that to do that, we must address not only the racism that was demonstrated in the riots, but the social conditions that breed tension.

Julia Drown: Will my right hon. Friend hold a debate in Government time on the need to bring the working practices and hours of the House into this century? Hon. Members on both sides of the House raised that in the debate on the Gracious Speech and it was mentioned again today. Why is it necessary for hon. Members to take 20 minutes going to the Table Office with a question for a Minister when an e-mail takes two minutes? Why do we not start Tuesday's and Wednesday's important work in the House until 2.30 pm? There are big issues to address. I know about today's debate, but I am concerned that we will not be able to represent our constituents and to scrutinise legislation properly if we continue at this pace and do not have a wider debate on the subject. We will need to hit a few more centuries before we make progress.

Robin Cook: I must confess that I do not think that I have too many more centuries left in me.

John Bercow: More, more.

Robin Cook: I am deeply encouraged by the hon. Gentleman, but I am not sure that I can rise to that challenge.
	I would like more rapid progress than my hon. Friend suggests might be made, and her comments are relevant to the debate that we are about to commence. I agree entirely that there are many ways in which we can make our House more efficient and ensure that we use the latest methods of communication in order that we are able to use our time effectively in the task of scrutinising legislation.

Brian Iddon: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 44?
	[That this House notes that Railtrack purchased their business apparently without a full understanding of their assets and liabilities; notes that railway bridges all over the country are now being closed or having their use restricted as a result; notes that some closures are putting lives at risk, such as that at Green Lane, Bolton, which lies on a main access route to the Royal Bolton Hospital and is expected to be closed for up to three years; requests Railtrack to repair those affected bridges which are causing the most disruption as a matter of urgency; and asks Her Majesty's Government to assess the scale of the problem and enter into a dialogue with Railtrack in order to persuade them to deal with this emerging situation.]
	All over the country, local authorities have been given the duty to inspect Railtrack's railway bridges, and they are closing them or severely restricting their use. Of several examples in my constituency, the worst is Green lane railway bridge, which has been closed for up to three years. That bridge lies on a main access route to the Royal Bolton hospital. I hope that my right hon. Friend agrees that the situation is intolerable.
	My constituents have of course noticed that Railtrack continues to pay dividends to its shareholders and, more recently, paid £1.3 million to its ex-chief executive. May we please have statement from the Minister for Transport on whether he believes that Railtrack can meet all its financial liabilities in the near future?

Robin Cook: I am aware of the early-day motion that my hon. Friend has tabled. He raises an issue that must be of great concern to travellers in his constituency and he has highlighted a matter of considerable concern among the wider public: payments to the former chief executive of Railtrack and the question that that raises about the company's relative priorities. I will draw my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and ensure that it responds to his local concerns.

Martin Salter: May I take this opportunity to welcome my right hon. Friend to his new position as Leader of the House? I assure him that there are many on the Labour Benches who welcome his wholehearted commitment to modernising the arcane proceedings of this place.
	May I encourage my right hon. Friend to consider finding time for a matter that should be debated and be of concern to all democratically elected politicians: the appallingly low turnout at the recent general election? I respectfully suggest to him that reform of our democratic processes is an essential precondition to reconnecting with the swathes of disengaged young voters.

Robin Cook: I entirely accept my hon. Friend's point about the importance of modernisation and welcome the support that he expresses for it. I am not sure that I necessarily see it as the main response to the question of voter participation in our democracy. The electorate will judge us by the extent to which we deliver on the programme that we set out at the election. If we do that, we can convince the public that democracy works and that the policies for which they voted are those that we implemented. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that when our electors look at how we behave, the hours that we sit and the absence of fast, efficient electronic communications, they sometimes wonder whether we are living in the same century as them.

David Drew: I raised with my right hon. Friend's predecessor the delay in the publication of the report of the review of support for student nurses. Obviously, that was some months ago. Given the need for many more student nurses in our hospitals, I urge my right hon. Friend, following discussion with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, to publish that report at the earliest possible time.

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend makes a point that follows on neatly from a previous question. We have committed ourselves to an increase in the number of nurses over and above the increase achieved during the previous Parliament. My hon. Friend raises an important part of the process to ensure that we are able to provide nurses to match the substantial expansion in the number of beds in our 10-year plan. I shall make sure that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health responds to my hon. Friend's question.

Geraint Davies: May we have an early debate on the social value and economic prospects of independent retailers and community shopping parades? Many hon. Members will be aware of the continuous erosion of those community facilities, not least, in recent times, community pharmacies which are being forced to close by the drop in drugs prices. Will urgent consideration be given to council tax concessions for some of those groups, so that we do not end up with the retail deserts created when large retailers such as Tesco withdraw to make ever higher profits and leave various groups in our communities who lack proper transport without adequate retail facilities?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend raises an issue that must be familiar to any hon. Member who represents a constituency containing small towns from which such facilities are disappearing, and I share the deep frustration of Members who represent those towns and their residents when they find that their local pharmacy has disappeared and there is no readily available alternative. We have to be realistic: the secular change in shopping trends is one in which the public have fully participated because they find it attractive in many ways. It is important that local authorities and the supermarkets work together to preserve shops in villages and small towns where they can, and, where they cannot do so, to make sure that there is readily available, free transport to the supermarket.

John McDonnell: rose--

Mr. Speaker: Order. Members must be in the Chamber for the Leader of the House's statement if they want to ask a question, so I cannot call the hon. Gentleman.

John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise, but I got stuck in traffic on the way here.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to hear that.

BILL PRESENTED

Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland)

Mr. Secretary Reid, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Blunkett, Mr. Secretary Byers and Mr. Desmond Browne, presented a Bill to provide for the supply to the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland of the signatures and dates of birth of electors and persons seeking registration as electors in Northern Ireland; for the use of that information in connection with elections in Northern Ireland; for the issue of electoral identity cards by the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland; for the modification in relation to voters with disabilities of certain rules about voting procedure in Northern Ireland; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday 2 July, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 6].

Point of Order

Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before we come to the business of the House, will you provide some clarification as to the significance of the business motion? As I understand it, the debate can continue until 7 o'clock or later--that is the effect of the two motions on the Order Paper. Am I right in supposing that, if the debate on the business motions continued until 7 o'clock or later, the votes on the substantive motions would then be taken immediately, without any discussion of the merits of the substantive motions?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right. That would be the case.

Business of the House

Stephen Twigg: I beg to move,
	That, at this day's sitting, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr. Robin Cook relating to Programming of Legislation and Deferred Divisions not later than half-past Six o'clock; and such Questions shall include the Questions on any amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; and those Questions may be decided, though opposed, after the expiration of the time for opposed business.
	It might be helpful if I briefly introduce the motion, which I anticipate will ensure the orderly conduct of business and is for the convenience of hon. Members and of the House. It is a straightforward, simple procedural motion that allows you, Mr. Speaker, to close today's proceedings in a timely fashion, while providing a full day's debate. There is nothing new or controversial about the motion and I hope that the House will now agree to it without lengthy discussion, so as to ensure the maximum time in which to debate the real issues of the day.

Dominic Grieve: I am bound to say that, for a complete absence of explanation of the purpose of the business motion, the introduction that we have just heard takes some beating. I do not understand--I hope that the Minister will intervene and explain--why we have the business motion at all. I assume that without it the principal business of the House--the programming of Bills and deferred voting--could be debated until 7 o'clock when, according to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, votes would take place on those two matters there and then. Will the Minister please intervene--we have had no speech--to explain the need to introduce a programme motion to curtail the debate by 30 minutes? I am happy to give way to the Minister.
	The situation becomes more astonishing. We have had no explanation of why we should go through the paraphernalia of debating the programming of business for the saving of half an hour. Apparently, that is what we are being asked to do.
	I welcome the Parliamentary Secretary to the Dispatch Box, but failing even to try to explain succinctly what is before us and the purpose that the motion is intended to achieve is rather an odd way of starting. I repeat: am I right in saying that the purpose of the motion is to save 30 minutes of debating time this afternoon? If so, why?
	Again, the silence is astonishing. The House is being treated with complete contempt. The Leader of the House knows well from past debates the anxiety that has been expressed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House about trying to achieve sensible programming of business. He knows also that there are considerable anxieties about the way in which the system is exploited. Here we have a system being introduced in an irrational fashion, with absolutely no justification or explanation offered of why we should have to go through this process.
	I hope that in the course of my short remarks and a short debate on the motion we might receive an answer from the Minister. I find it astonishing that none has so far been tendered. Does that not call into question the entire issue that we shall have to discuss on the substantive motions? If we are to be treated in this fashion over a simple business motion, Lord help us when it comes to the major issues that we must discuss, which involve trying to hold the Government to account and which ask us to make substantial concessions in terms of the normal practice of the House for the sake, apparently, of improving the way in which business is conducted.
	If the Minister cannot explain this simple motion in a coherent fashion, how can we have any faith or trust in the explanations that will be given on the substantive motions?

Douglas Hogg: I shall reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has said in opposing the motion. I have but a few points to make.
	First, it is lamentable that the Minister who has charge of the motion should not have explained why he is introducing it. We are entitled to know. The fact that he has not told us, or even advanced an explanation, shows either a lack of mastery of his brief or a contempt for the House, which I find deplorable.

Desmond Swayne: I notice that a note has now arrived from the Box to assist the Minister. Perhaps we might get an answer now. The Minister appears to have received it.

Douglas Hogg: I am sure that the Minister will need notes and advice. He will also have to learn to treat the House with something approaching respect. If he wishes to be, as I understand he is, the deputy Leader of the House--

Eric Forth: What?

Douglas Hogg: I suppose that the hon. Gentleman is the deputy Leader of the House. He will have to take more care with the House. The purpose of the Leader's office is to represent the interests of the entirety of the House. If the junior Minister in the Leader's office does not have the courtesy to tell us why he is laying a business motion before the House--

Desmond Swayne: The hon. Gentleman does not know.

Douglas Hogg: I suspect that he does not, and that suggests that he did not properly prepare himself before speaking from the Dispatch Box. That shows a contempt for the House that I find wholly lamentable.
	Secondly, it is not good enough that a debate of this sort, which is of some importance, should come out of the time that is allocated for the substantive motions that are to be debated. It is not necessary, either, because the House's business could be ordered so that we took the substantive motions in a way that ensured that full time was preserved for debate on them. The Government have chosen not to do that; they have taken a course of action that could result in questions on the substantive motion being put without any debate at all. If the House chose to debate the business motion until 7 o'clock, questions on deferred voting and programming in the substantive motion could be put to the House without any discussion. I suspect that that is deliberate; the aim is to try to curtail debate, which again shows contempt for free speech.
	There is a related point to do with voting. If we are minded to press for a Division on the business motion, which we are perfectly entitled to do, that too will come out of the time allocated for the substantive debate. If we are to do our job properly, press the Government on why we have a business motion and ask for a proper explanation--which, if we find it unsatisfactory, we shall vote against--the time for all of that comes out of the substantive motion. That is yet another example of a tyrannical Government trying to confine the House and prevent proper discussion, and it is a disgrace.

Eric Forth: This is a rather sad and sorry beginning to what will be a sad and sorry parliamentary day, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) reflected all too well.
	The spectacle of a Minister coming to the House with no explanation at all for the motion on the Order Paper indicates all too readily the current relationship between the Government and the House of Commons, which is one of arrogance and total mastery. The Government's attitude is that the House is an irrelevance, inconvenience and nuisance to be swept aside; its role is to be minimised.
	We shall shortly explore those matters further when we debate the main motion but, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham has already pointed out, the business motion illustrates only too well the difficulties that we now face. Ministers no longer regard it as their responsibility or duty to the House even to attempt to give any sort of explanation of their proposals. After all, technically at least, the motion is a proposal from the Government, to be considered and disposed of by the House. The sad fact is, after four years of the previous Parliament, in which the Government had a majority of 170, we now have to repeat the exercise. The Government believe that they have an absolute right to do what they wish in all circumstances and without even giving an explanation of their motives and what the consequences may be.
	As Members, we are reduced to making a judgment on whether to curtail our remarks on this part of the day's business to preserve something of what is left. That is obviously the Government's intention; they are happy and think that they have been clever. In a sense, they are; the motion, together with the result of the motions that we have still to debate, is a relentless diminution of the opportunities available to Members, not just to question the Government and hold them to account, but to irritate them, delay them and cause them inconvenience. There is a new constitutional departure--the belief that the House of Commons exists for the convenience of Government Members.
	That should be spelled out. At the start of what will no doubt be a distinguished and lengthy career, it would be helpful if the Minister set the stamp on it in a manner uncharacteristic of a Minister. Will he lay out for us with honesty and transparency the fact that the Government now regard the House of Commons as a necessary inconvenience, whose role they wish to diminish as far as possible so that the business can simply be got through as expeditiously as possible?
	We hear from the babes on the Government Benches--and from other hon. Members--that they believe that being detained inconveniently in the House is unacceptable in this modern age. They believe that the legislative process should be reduced and diminished to something that is quick, easy and efficient. Hon. Members would then be able to leave the House as soon as possible to get on with I know not what.

Douglas Hogg: My right hon. Friend is right, and does not that make it all the more scandalous that the House is likely to rise at 7 o'clock tonight? There is no reason why even the babes should not stay here a bit longer.

Eric Forth: It remains to be seen how much time the Divisions later today will add--and, in the hope that hon. Members will be able to plan their busy day, I can assure the House that there will be Divisions later. We will then be able to assess how many hon. Members--and of what gender--will be present to vote.

John Bercow: I am as perturbed as my right hon. Friend by the Minister's failure to offer a rationale for the motion in his unnecessarily truncated speech. My right hon. Friend has a track record of penetrating the inner recesses of ministerial minds: does he believe that the motion is an example of knavery or of folly, or is it a hybrid of the two?

Eric Forth: The House should show its traditional generosity to the Minister, who has not been in his post long. He has not been in the House long, but I do not hold that against him. His opening remarks were brief, but I am sure that we will get a comprehensive and penetrating analysis from him after this debate. That will re-establish our confidence in him, which was dented by the way in which he stuck to his notes in his short speech. I hope that I can persuade Conservative Members to join me in being generous towards the Minister.
	For hon. Members who love the House and believe that it should still have a role, this is a sad and depressing day. I fear that today's debates will show that a large step has been taken towards the House's demise as a true instrument for holding the Government of the day to account. I should like to think that I was wrong, but I suspect that I will have been proved all too right by about 7.30 this evening.

William Cash: I share the view that the motion reveals the Government's contempt for the House, but it is equally true--and just as important--that the Government have contempt for the electorate. At the recent general election, voters sent hon. Members to the House to represent them. They deserve better.
	I spoke in yesterday's debate on the constitution about parliamentary reform, and the motion reveals why that reform is needed. It is inconceivable that ordinary people could understand the verbiage and gobbledegook that today's Order Paper contains. I defy anyone to come up with a rational explanation for today's proceedings.
	I have no sympathy for the Minister, who treated the House with contempt from the Dispatch Box. Equally, however, I severely censure those--in particular the Leader of the House--who are responsible for the disgraceful way in which today's debates are to proceed. The motions, if approved, will effectively cause debate on treaties and other important matters to be truncated and driven underground.
	I want to comment briefly on the motion. It calls to mind Dunning's famous motion of 1780, which stated:
	"The power of the Crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished."
	For the word "Crown", we should substitute "Executive"; for "Executive", we could substitute "Ministers of the Crown". That includes the Prime Minister.
	The motion shows contempt for the House. More than that, it shows the contempt of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House for the people who recently voted in the election. No wonder there was a low turnout and such cynicism. Any electors who were confronted with such ridiculous gobbledegook and verbiage would have every reason to question why they should vote. Ministers should take the responsibility and the blame for that.
	I would have expected the Leader of the House to rise above what we are witnessing today.

Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend makes a serious point about the verbiage in the motions. Does he agree that it would be a great improvement if the Order Paper always contained a summary of the consequences of the motions presented to the House?

William Cash: As ever, I am delighted by my right hon. and learned Friend's remarks. Like most of my hon. Friends, he understands these matters. Labour Members apparently do not understand them. Bills that deal with treaties--one was published recently--and other important matters are accompanied by an explanatory memorandum, explaining in simple language what exactly is going on. Do not Members of Parliament have a right to such explanations of motions?
	There is a serious problem. The confidence of Members in what is happening is at risk. Its diminution is the direct result of the sort of technical garbage that we are considering. It is therefore essential for the House to deal with the matter properly. I believe that some Labour Members agree with me in principle. I should be delighted if they addressed the matter, however moderately. I am looking at a specific Member, whom I know well. All power to the elbow of those who have the courage to stand up to their Government. The independence of Back Benchers in matters that relate to the power of the Executive is at risk. Hon. Members know that some Conservative Members occasionally had to inconvenience our Government.
	We are considering a test case, which presents an opportunity for Members of good heart, good will and determination on behalf of Parliament to say from the beginning that we have had enough and that we will not allow such a method of proceeding to continue.

Richard Shepherd: I came to the House with the joyous intent of wishing the new Parliamentary Secretary all the best. His appointment under the Leader of the House is important. Indeed, the Leader of the House is one of the most effective parliamentary speakers and questioners, who has--or had--a fundamental regard for the purposes of the House. I shall now enter a caveat: it is disappointing that, with his first words in his new post, the Parliamentary Secretary moved a guillotine motion. The motion that we are discussing simply truncates business. It is followed by the important motions whose consideration it truncates, albeit by only half an hour, although it itself holds out the possibility of debate until any hour. I reflect on those matters because it is an unfortunate way for the Parliamentary Secretary's tenure to commence.
	I think that it was Maine who said that justice was to be found in the interstices of procedure. I am conscious that in justice lies our liberty. The Leader of the House, when he took over these responsibilities on that glorious day, 8 June, must have closeted himself away to produce, between then and now, nearly seven pages of closely argued and reasoned motions. Reasoned? Well, argued, anyway, through the seven pages.
	Is the House being given justice in being asked to examine something in only four and a half hours that strikes at its very function and purpose? These pages touch on the absolute control of the Executive over the House. That is why this little half-hour being taken out of those deliberations signals something: this is not now a matter for the House; it is a matter for the Executive.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am a little bit baffled as to where this entire set of suggestions came from. Has it been debated on the Floor of the House before now, or in one of the Committees, perhaps giving us some of the answers to the questions that the hon. Gentleman is now asking?

Richard Shepherd: There are no documents attached to this motion. It is purely an act of the Executive. It is being taken at the moment of the greatest vulnerability and weakness in the life of a Parliament, which is when it is a new Parliament. I look across the Chamber and I ask myself how many hon. Members have actually read the motions that are to follow, which are to be subjected to this guillotine. Two people have put their hands up. Any other offers? Now four people have put their hands up.

Chris Bryant: Have you read them?

Richard Shepherd: Yes, I have. I remember the great Michael Foot asking that question of "the ninnies on the other side" and they put their hands up. That is what we have reduced this Chamber to: not reason, not argument, but to the fact that we put our hands up. The reading of this document and the understanding of Standing Orders are important. When I first came into the House, I did not understand the constitution and the way in which we carry out our business. Our justice lies in these details. We are talking about the constitution not only of the Chamber but of this country.
	If I cannot express myself, if I cannot argue even though I am mandated, and if it is solely the majority--or not even the majority, after all--that slaps in and says what will happen on occasions that follow this, I must ask the House to consider whether what is effectively a guillotine that will truncate our debate will allow us enough time to discuss in detail whether we shall have in future the opportunities that we have had in the past.
	The traditions and freedoms of the House to represent our constituents touch on our liberties. The legislation that comes forth from our debates in this place is the criminal law of our land. I ask the most important section of any Parliament--the majority--to reflect. Great issues will come up in this Parliament, such as trial by jury and double jeopardy. Such legislation will require amendment. Does this motion, which gives the Government the ability to set--to the minute, if necessary--what we may debate, enable us to discuss those matters now? It will be taken for granted that those on the Opposition Benches will oppose everything, although that is not the truth of the matter. We must reflect what we are bringing upon ourselves if we accept this: a Minister will be able to dismiss every amendment. That is what it says here.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is very obviously referring to the motions yet to come. We are at the moment debating the business motion.

Richard Shepherd: Sir, I would only suggest that I am referring to the motions in respect of the question of whether there is sufficient time to discuss them. Their import is so great that, having identified the principles behind them, I am arguing that there is not. That is the purpose of my reference.
	It is difficult to condense into a four and a half hour debate the passions, the histories and the traditions of this country as a free nation in which freedom of expression was central to the way in which we undertook our business. I suggest that new Members should have the opportunity to read the seven pages of the motions. After all, the former Foreign Secretary must have spent an enormous amount of time preparing them.
	If I am fortunate enough to catch your eye later, Sir, or if I am fortunate enough to be able to speak to the amendment, I shall ask many questions and address the issues then, but, as the matter stands, let us be absolutely clear that the time available is inadequate; that this motion does not give us the opportunity to discuss the matter sufficiently; and that we ought to stand back and put our view to the Leader of the House. Remember, he holds a unique post in which he tries to hold the balance between the interests of the House and--[Interruption.] I thought I heard the hon. Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking) say, "Too long." It is not my fault that the motion is on the Order Paper. The hon. Lady should take that up with her Whips and her Government. If she has a view, she can make her own argument as to why the time we have taken is too long. This "off with their heads" attitude has reduced the House to impotence, so that it is of no interest to the wider public outside.
	I am trying to contain a fury at what is to come, although my anger started during what was to have been a tribute and well-wish to the deputy Leader of the House. I hope that he will understand that balance in future. When the present Leader of the House was already a Member, John Biffen, a former Leader of the House, said, "We have to remember that today's Government is tomorrow's prospective Opposition." Protect our freedoms and our liberties, and do not introduce these measures.

Mark Fisher: I share some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) about the central seriousness of what we are to debate this afternoon, in that it goes to the core of Executive control of the House and relations between the House and the Executive. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) made the good point that we would all benefit from an explanatory memorandum on such motions. To go further, I would have welcomed an explanation from the Minister of the loss of half an hour.
	Allowing for all that and for the central seriousness of a proposal which, unless the Leader of the House says otherwise, could in some respects represent almost instant guillotines on our proceedings, are we not being daft in wasting time on this debate? The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills made the point that we have only one afternoon to discuss the matter, but we have already wasted half an hour--

Eric Forth: Wasted?

Mark Fisher: We have wasted half an hour during which we could have discussed the substantive motion. We are merely debating the time available. Let us get on, because the issues are so important and so central to the balance between the Executive and the legislature that we need all afternoon to discuss that matter, rather than considering whether we are spending time wisely.

Dominic Grieve: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Has he finished? I thought that I was intervening.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) did not make his intentions clear. I assumed that he was giving way.

Mark Fisher: For the convenience of the House, I am happy to give way, although I was within syllables of concluding.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is ever gracious.

Dominic Grieve: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Does he not think it right that we should spend a little time discussing the matter, particularly in the absence of an explanation? It goes to the very root of the relevance of the Chamber and the way in which we operate. The explanation could easily have been provided and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do what it is. Why could we not be told?

Mark Fisher: I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says, but are we not losing our perspective? The important issue is the substantive motion, but we have spent half an hour discussing time, which is a slight error of judgment.

Gerald Howarth: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). However, while I agree with many of his sentiments, I do not agree with his specific suggestion that the time spent on this motion is wasted, because it and the next motion are inextricably linked. This motion is a forerunner of what is to come: this motion encapsulates the Government's attitude to the House. That is why my right hon. and hon. Friends and I are challenging it.
	I am also delighted to follow the last Conservative speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge- Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), whose passionate defence of this House and this Parliament--its traditions and its liberties--is an inspiration to many of us and will, I hope, serve as a lesson to many who have just joined the House. One day they will be on the Opposition Benches, just as one day I started out on the Government Benches. If they treat lightly the way in which we enact legislation on behalf of our constituents, they will not only do their own constituents a disservice, but fail to live up to the responsibilities conferred on them by the privilege of membership of the House. They should therefore treat it with great seriousness.
	I do not wish to speak for long, but I will say this. Like my hon. Friend, I had hoped to be able to welcome the Parliamentary Secretary to his new post in the usual way. As the hon. Gentleman will know from the four years that he has spent in the House, the House is very understanding of new Ministers, and of the trepidation with which most sensible new Ministers approach the Dispatch Box--the nervousness, the anticipation and all the rest. It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman started off so inauspiciously; I hope that he will take advantage of the House's indulgence to return to the Dispatch Box and provide the proper explanation that the motion unquestionably demands.
	As I said earlier, I consider that a motion to truncate debate on such hugely important issues by half an hour demonstrates the Government's contemptuous attitude to the House. It is significant that the first business before us since the debate on the Gracious Speech should be a measure to truncate the powers of the House, and to confer yet more powers on the Executive--powers that they arrogated to themselves in the last Parliament without the consent of the Opposition. That was not agreed by the House: it was agreed by the Labour party, and by no one else.
	The Government should bear it in mind that vengeance will return. If they treat the House and the Opposition with such contempt, they should not expect, when the tables are turned, to be treated with the courtesy with which they should be treating the Opposition now.

John Bercow: Does my hon. Friend share the widespread view--it is certainly widespread on the Conservative Benches--that the intended circumscription of debate on business of the House motions would be unacceptable even if it had enjoyed cross-party agreement through the usual channels, which it patently has not? Does he also agree that we need not look into the crystal ball when we can read the book? We know from the way in which Programming Sub-Committees have been constituted that they entail domination by Government Whips. They are hand-picked; they are not accountable. It is here, in the House, that we have our only opportunity to express our views about the wisdom or unwisdom of what the Government propose.

Gerald Howarth: I agree with my hon. Friend; and if he casts his mind back to the last Parliament, he may recall that there were those of us who did not always agree that the usual channels were the best defence of our liberties here. We are a new Parliament, however, and we are starting afresh. We mean to ensure--I hope that this applies to Members on both sides of the House; I am certainly much encouraged by what was said by my former Staffordshire colleague, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher)--that there is cross-party determination, in the interests of good government, to prevent the House from being treated with contempt by the Executive.

David Winnick: The time will certainly come when Conservative Members will be sitting on the Government Benches, although I trust that it will not be for a long time. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that those of us who support the Government on this measure do so not out of arrogance or to prevent proper scrutiny by the Opposition--although we also have a responsibility in that respect--but because we want a balance between proper scrutiny, the role of the House of Commons and our sitting hours, which should be normal, and should not go right through the night when that is totally unnecessary?

Gerald Howarth: I accept that the hon. Gentleman is assiduous in his examination of the Executive, but I do not recall many all-night debates in the last Parliament. When I came into the House in 1983, we had night after night of all-night sittings. I did not enjoy that, and it is not the best way to run this place. I hope that Labour Members will understand that one of the reasons why we did what we did in the last Parliament, led by my indefatigable and wonderful right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who was a great inspiration to us in our endeavours, was that we felt that there was no other way to get the message across that we did not believe that the balance that the hon. Gentleman wants to establish was being struck at the right point.
	I want to conclude my remarks, because the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) was right that we should get on to the main business. I hope all hon. Members agree that it is a matter of central importance to the good governance of this country and to those who sent us here that we should have proper scrutiny of the Executive. However, the absence of people in the Press Gallery shows how little interest the media take in the serious issue of the government of this country. That should concern every Member of the House, from whatever party and regardless of the view they hold. The media's indifference to any discussion of these matters, and their concentration on the trivia of our private lives and issues of froth and no substance, is one of the reasons why the House is held in declining regard by our constituents, and why we need a proper debate on this issue. We do not need this programme motion, which, to the discredit of the new Leader of the House, is the first measure he has brought before us.

Nicholas Winterton: I make a plea to the Leader of the House, who has a very important role. Will he please prevail on his junior Minister, before the debate is brought to an end, to provide a simple, straightforward, brief explanation of why this motion is necessary? As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, in the last Parliament I was a member of the Modernisation Committee, and also had the honour to chair the Select Committee on Procedure. I am concerned about the House's ability to monitor the Executive and to hold the Government of the day to account.
	I listen with deep respect every time my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) speaks, because, whether he is sitting on the Government Benches or on the Opposition Benches, his belief in upholding the integrity of the House is second to none.
	I should like to respond to the intervention of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who is also a fine parliamentarian. The major part of the debate we are about to have will be based on the first report of the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons, Session 2000-01, "Programming of Legislation", in whose production my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills and I played a part.
	We should get on to the main business, but the Government should at least have the courtesy to explain why this unfortunate motion is necessary.

Stephen Twigg: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thank the Opposition for the warmth of their welcome for my first appearance at the Dispatch Box. I particularly thank the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) for their kind words and the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) at least for his intent. I served with the him and the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on the Modernisation Committee for two years during the previous Parliament and I am aware of their experience and of their commitment to the House and to ensuring the effectiveness of the Chamber and the House in general.
	The answer to the question that has been raised by many hon. Members is that, without this business motion it would be possible for the debate on the programming motion to continue beyond 7 o'clock. Were that to happen, the subsequent motion on deferred Divisions could be talked out. There may be some hon. Members who would like that to happen, and they can vote against this motion, although I urge hon. Members to support it so that we can begin the debate.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I understand that it is always possible to talk out Government business. If it were not, there would be hardly any point in having Members of Parliament. However, if such a mishap were to occur, is there any reason why the matter should not reappear on the Order Paper, perhaps even next week?

Stephen Twigg: This is not Government business: it is a matter for the House. It is based on a Modernisation Committee report and Labour Members will have a free vote on the issues later.

Eric Forth: Will the Minister remind us who chairs the Modernisation Committee?

Stephen Twigg: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House chairs the Committee. However, if the right hon. Gentleman looks at the report, he will see that there was cross-party support.

Angela Browning: It was not supported by the official Opposition, whom I represented on that Committee.

Stephen Twigg: I accept that, but the former right hon. Member for East Devon, Sir Peter Emery, who was a highly respected Conservative Back Bencher, did support the report, and therefore, there was cross-Bench support. The hon. Lady is right to say that there was no Opposition Front-Bench support.

Gerald Howarth: If it is right that this is not Government business and is entirely a House of Commons matter, it does not matter if it runs beyond 7 o'clock. It is in the House's hands. It is no skin off the Government's nose. We could just bring it back on another day for the mutual convenience of all hon. Members.

Stephen Twigg: It is a matter for the House and, if a majority in the House share that opinion, it will be reflected in the vote on the business motion. I reject the charge that by tabling the business motion we are showing contempt for the House. We have allocated a full day for this discussion and there have been no Government statements. Previous similar subjects have been granted only half a day. My feeling is that the House wants to get on and discuss the substantive matters.

Question put:--
	The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 118.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That, at this day's sitting, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr. Robin Cook relating to Programming of Legislation and Deferred Divisions not later than half-past Six o'clock; and such Questions shall include the Questions on any amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; and those Questions may be decided, though opposed, after the expiration of the time for opposed business.

Programming of Bills

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now come to the main motions. It may be for the convenience of the House if I say that the motion on deferred Divisions may be debated together with the motion on programming of Bills although, of course, there will be scope for separate Divisions. I must also announce to the House that the Speaker has been unable to accept the amendment tabled to the motion on programming.

Robin Cook: I beg to move,
	That in the current Session of Parliament Orders A to I below shall have effect:
	A. Programme Motions
	(1) If, before second reading of a bill, notice of a motion providing--
	(a) for committal of the bill, and
	(b) for any proceedings on the bill to be programmed,
	is given by a Minister of the Crown, the motion may be made immediately after second reading, and Standing Order No. 63 shall not apply to the Bill.
	(2) Such a motion is to be called a programme motion.
	(3) An order made by the House as a result of a programme motion is to be called a programme order.
	(4) A motion to vary or supplement a programme order is also to be called a programme motion.
	(5) A programme motion may provide for the allocation of time for any proceedings on a bill.
	(6) Except in the following three cases, or where paragraph (8) of Programme Order B (Programming Committees) applies, the question on a programme motion is to be put forthwith.
	(7) The first exception is where--
	(a) a Standing Committee has reported a resolution under paragraph (11) of Sessional Order C (Programming Sub-Committees) proposing an alteration of the date by which the bill is to be reported to the House, and
	(b) the motion made under paragraph (12) of Sessional Order C (Programming Sub-Committees) does not give effect to the Standing Committee's proposal.
	(8) The second exception is where the motion makes further provision for proceedings on consideration and third reading of the bill otherwise than in accordance with a resolution of a Programming Committee under paragraph (5) of Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) or a resolution of a Standing Committee under paragraph (13) of Sessional Order C (Programming Sub-Committees).
	(9) The third exception is where the motion reduces the amount of time allocated under a programme order for any proceedings on the bill (whether or not it also increases the amount of time allocated for other proceedings on the bill).
	(10) In an excepted case, any question necessary to dispose of proceedings on a programme motion is to be put not later than three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion.
	(11) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted Business) applies to proceedings on a programme motion.
	(12) Standing Order No. 83 (Allocation of Time) does not apply to a programme motion.
	(13) If a programme order applies to a bill, neither Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) nor Standing Order No. 120 (Business Sub-Committee) applies to the bill.
	B. Programming Committees
	(1) This order applies if proceedings in committee of the whole House or on consideration and third reading are subject to a programme order.
	(2) There is to be a committee for the bill consisting of--
	(a) the Chairman of Ways and Means (who is to be chairman of the committee); and
	(b) not more than eight other Members, nominated by the Speaker.
	(3) The committee is to be called the Programming Committee.
	(4) The quorum of the Programming Committee is four.
	(5) The Programming Committee shall consider the allocation of time to proceedings in committee of the whole House or on consideration and third reading and report any resolution which it makes to the House.
	(6) Proceedings in the Programming Committee shall be brought to a conclusion not later than two hours after their commencement.
	(7) For the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (6), the chairman shall--
	(a) first put forthwith any question which has been proposed from the chair and not yet decided; and
	(b) then put successively questions on any motions made by a Minister of the Crown.
	(8) On a motion being made in the House relating to a resolution of the Programming Committee, any question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion shall be put not later than three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of those proceedings.
	(9) If such a motion is agreed to, its provisions shall have effect as if they were included in the programme order for the bill.
	(10) Proceedings on a motion made under paragraph (8) may be entered upon and decided, though opposed, at any hour.
	(11) Resolutions of the Programming Committee--
	(a) may be reported from time to time; and
	(b) subject to the powers of the Speaker or Chairman to select the amendments, new clauses and new schedules to be proposed, may include alterations in the order in which specified proceedings on the bill are to be taken.
	C. Programming Sub-Committees(1) If a bill is subject to a programme order which commits it to a standing committee, the order stands referred to the committee and shall be considered by a sub-committee of the committee.
	(2) The sub-committee is to be called the Programming Sub-Committee.
	(3) The Programming Sub-Committee shall consist of--
	(a) the chairman or one of the chairmen of the committee (who is to be chairman of the sub-committee); and
	(b) seven members of the committee, nominated by the Speaker.
	(4) The quorum of the Programming Sub-Committee is four.
	(5) The Programming Sub-Committee shall report to the committee any resolution which it makes about--
	(a) the number of sittings to be allotted to the consideration of the bill in the committee;
	(b) the allocation of the proceedings to each sitting;
	(c) the time at which any proceedings, if not previously concluded, are to be brought to a conclusion;
	(d) the date by which the bill is to be reported to the House;
	(e) the programming of consideration and third reading.
	(6) Proceedings in the Programming Sub-Committee shall be brought to a conclusion not later than two hours after their commencement.
	(7) For the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (6), the chairman shall--
	(a) first put forthwith any question which has been proposed from the chair and not yet been decided; and
	(b) then put forthwith successively questions on any motions made by a Minister of the Crown.
	(8) Resolutions of the Programming Sub-Committee--
	(a) may be reported from time to time; and
	(b) subject to the powers of the chairman to select the amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be proposed, may include alterations in the order in which specified proceedings are to be taken.
	(9) On a motion in the terms of a resolution of the Programming Sub-Committee being made in the committee, any question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion is to be put not later than half an hour after the commencement of those proceedings.
	(10) If the provisions of a resolution of the Programming Sub-Committee under sub-paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph (5) are agreed to (with or without modification) by the committee, the provisions (or the provisions as modified) are to have effect as if they were included in the programme order for the bill.
	(11) Any resolution of the committee--
	(a) proposing an alteration to the date by which the Bill is to be reported to the House; or
	(b) making a recommendation about the programming of the Bill on consideration and third reading;
	shall be reported to the House.
	(12) If a resolution is reported proposing an alteration to the date by which the Bill is to be reported to the House, a supplemental programme motion shall be set down for a day not later than the fifth sitting day after the day when the report was made which may--
	(a) give effect to the Committee's proposal;
	(b) otherwise alter or supplement the provisions of the original programme of the bill; or
	(c) confirm the date set in the original programme order for the bill.
	(13) If a resolution is reported making a recommendation about the programming of the Bill on consideration and third reading, a supplemental programme motion shall be set down before the consideration of the bill on report which may--
	(a) give effect to the Committee's recommendations;
	(b) otherwise alter or supplement the provisions of the original programme of the bill; or
	(c) confirm the original programme order for the bill.
	D. Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings in Standing Committee or in Committee of the whole House
	(1) This order applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings in standing committee or in committee of the whole House to a conclusion in accordance with a programme order.
	(2) The chairman shall put forthwith the following questions (but no others)--
	(a) any question already proposed from the chair;
	(b) any question necessary to bring to a decision a question so proposed;
	(c) the question on any amendment, new clause or new schedule selected by the chairman for separate division;
	(d) the question on any amendment moved or motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
	(e) any other question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.
	(3) On a motion made for a new clause or a new schedule, the chairman shall put only the question that the clause or schedule be added to the bill.
	(4) If two or more questions would fall to be put under paragraph (2)(d) on successive amendments moved or motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the chairman shall instead put a single question in relation to those amendments or motions.
	(5) If two or more questions would fall to be put under paragraph (2)(e) in relation to successive provisions of the bill, the chairman shall instead put a single question in relation to those provisions.
	(6) On conclusion of the proceedings in a committee, the chairman shall report the bill (or such of the bill's provisions as were committed to it) to the House without putting any question.
	E. Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration or third reading
	(1) This order applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings on consideration and third reading to a conclusion in accordance with a programme order.
	(2) The Speaker shall put forthwith the following questions (but no others)--
	(a) any question already proposed from the chair;
	(b) any question necessary to bring to a decision a question so proposed;
	(c) the question on any amendment, new clause or new schedule selected by the Speaker for separate division;
	(d) the question on any amendment moved or motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
	(e) any other question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.
	(3) On a motion made for a new clause or a new schedule, the Speaker shall put only the question that the clause or schedule be added to the bill.
	(4) If two or more questions would fall to be put under paragraph (2)(d) on successive amendments moved or motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single question in relation to those amendments or motions.
	F. Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments
	(1) This order applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments to a conclusion in accordance with a programme order.
	(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any question which has been proposed from the chair and not yet decided.
	(3) If that question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, the Speaker shall then put forthwith--
	(a) a single question on any further amendments of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown; and
	(b) the question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment or (as the case may be) in their Amendment as amended.
	(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith--
	(a) a single question on any amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment; and
	(b) the question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment or (as the case may be) in their Amendment as amended.
	(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House disagrees with the Lords in a Lords Amendment.
	(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the question that this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments.
	(7) As soon as the House has--
	(a) agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments; or
	(b) disposed of an amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to,
	the Speaker shall put forthwith a single question on any amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.
	G. Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords
	(1) This order applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings on any further message from the Lords to a conclusion in accordance with a programme order.
	(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any question which has been proposed from the chair and not yet decided.
	(3) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the question already proposed from the chair.
	(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the question on any motion made by a Minister on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords message.
	(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the question that this House agrees with the Lords in all of the remaining Lords proposals.
	H. Programme orders: Reasons Committee
	(1) This order applies in relation to any Committee to be appointed to draw up Reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with a programme order.
	(2) The Speaker shall put forthwith the question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its chairman.
	(3) The Committee shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
	(4) Proceedings in the Committee shall be brought to a conclusion not later than half an hour after their commencement.
	(5) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (4), the chairman shall--
	(a) first put forthwith any question which has been proposed from the chair and not yet decided; and
	(b) then put forthwith successively questions on motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.
	(6) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further question being put.
	I. Programme orders: supplementary provisions
	(1) The provisions of this order apply to proceedings in the House or in Committee of the whole House on a bill which is subject to a programme order.
	(2) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) applies to the proceedings for any period after ten o'clock (or on Thursday, seven o'clock) allocated to them in accordance with the programme order.
	(3) The proceedings may not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
	(4) If, on a day on which the bill has been set down to be taken as an order of the day, a motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No.24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this order, stand over to Seven o'clock--
	(a) that motion stands over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the bill which, in accordance with the programme order, are to be brought to conclusion at or before that time; and
	(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the bill which, in accordance with the programme order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time is postponed for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that motion.
	(5) If a day on which the bill has been set down to be taken as an order of the day is one to which a motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No.24 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the bill which, in accordance with the programme order, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day is postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that motion.
	(6) No dilatory motion may be made in relation to the proceedings except by a Minister of the Crown; and the question on any such motion is to be put forthwith.
	(7) If at any sitting the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under a programme order, no notice is required of a motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of the programme order.
	It might help the House if, before I turn to the substance of the motion before us, I respond to some of the comments that have just been made.
	First, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) asked whether the motion had been before any Committee of the House. Motions that are before the House this afternoon flow from the recommendations of the Modernisation Committee in two successive reports, and fairly faithfully carry through the recommendations of both those reports.
	Secondly, the terms of the motions before us are very close to those of the motions that the House has debated previously. The first, on programming, is similar to the one carried in the last Session; the second, on deferred Divisions, is identical. The only difference between the debates on the motions that we have debated in the past and tonight's debate is that the time for tonight's debate is longer than the time for debate when the House last passed these motions. When it last debated them, it did so on a half day, starting at 7 pm. On this occasion, because of the importance of these issues and because hon. Members would wish to express themselves, we have allowed a full day for debate.

Douglas Hogg: But the right hon. Gentleman will observe that the programming motion now before the House provides that programme motions will be put to the vote immediately, and we shall not be able to debate them for 45 minutes as we were able to do in the last Parliament. Moreover, there is no point in saying that there was all-party agreement to the report because, had the right hon. Gentleman been in the House, attending the debates in the last Parliament, he would have known full well that programming motions were resisted on every occasion. I made more than 12 speeches opposing them.

Robin Cook: I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can take some credit for having been one of the reasons that persuaded the great majority of the members of the Modernisation Committee, in their last report, to propose that those programming motions should be taken forthwith. I did say--

Douglas Hogg: Why?

Robin Cook: I will turn to the issue of substance later, but I said at the start of my comments that the motions before the House faithfully include the recommendations of the Modernisation Committee, of which--the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right--that was one.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman raised, in the course of the previous discussion, the proposal that, when there is before the House a motion that is necessarily technical and legalistic, it should be accompanied by an explanatory memorandum, setting out the purpose of the motion. That is a worthwhile proposal. In future, I shall endeavour to ensure that that is met on the Order Paper, although on this occasion I shall have to attempt to explain it in my speech.

Angela Browning: The right hon. Gentleman told my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) that it was his participation in 12 debates that led the Modernisation Committee to its conclusions, but that is not the case. One of my objections to the way in which that Committee dealt with the matter is that it made no analysis of the way in which programming motions were debated in the previous Session.

Robin Cook: Other members of the Modernisation Committee will be able to respond to the hon. Lady's comments on the way in which it reached its conclusions. I am sorry if she is going to deny the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) the benefit of being able to claim the credit for the change.

Lynne Jones: My right hon. Friend mentioned previous reports of the Select Committee on Modernisation. I have only had a chance to look at the report on the programming of legislation. It does not seem to include all the items that are before us today. For example, has the proposal that Lords amendments and Government motions to disagree with them should be taken forthwith without any debate been considered previously?

Robin Cook: It is fair to say that the Modernisation Committee's report is brief and does not go into the full detail necessary for the resolution that is put before the House. That proposal is entirely consistent with the policy proposal of the Committee.

John Bercow: rose--

Robin Cook: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman on this occasion; I never wish to disappoint him. However, I must then make some progress.

John Bercow: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his gracious protection of my interests, but I am sorry to have to say that his flippant response to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) betrays an ignorance of the history of the dispute on this matter, that is to his enduring discredit. Is he not aware that in the previous Parliament there was continuous dispute about the operations of the Programming Sub-Committees and programming motions on the Floor of the House, and that his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping)--an assiduous performer at the Dispatch Box, who is sadly no longer a member of the Government--undertook, with the support of his boss, the then Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett), on a number of occasions to review the operation of those matters. Has the Leader of the House forgotten, or did he not know?

Robin Cook: Of course, these will never be matters on which it is easy to form a consensus. I wish it were otherwise. Different views will be taken on a programming motion. However, it is hard to see why on every occasion in the previous Parliament--despite the fact that the Programming Sub-Committee may sometimes have reached a conclusion that was acceptable to many of its members--the motion was contentious.
	Perhaps I may try to restore a sense of perspective to the debate.

Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Robin Cook: I wish to make some progress, but I will happily give way when I have made this point.
	The motions put before the House give effect to proposals of the Modernisation Committee that remain experimental. That is why they were temporary in the previous Session and why they must both be renewed. Both will be reviewed at the end of this Session. I invite hon. Members, therefore, to recognise that this is not the seismic debate that some people attempted to describe in which we are setting aside centuries of tradition and of the rights of Members. This is an experiment to make the proceedings of the House more effective, which the House itself will have ample opportunity to review and reconsider on a future occasion.

Patrick Cormack: The right hon. Gentleman is beginning what I hope will be a long and illustrious tenure of an important office. Does he accept that the Modernisation Committee is discredited in the eyes of many Members of Parliament because it is chaired by the Leader of the House? If it were chaired by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), or even--dare I say it?--by me, it would command much greater cross-party support for its proposals. I urge the right hon. Gentleman seriously to consider his position with regard to that Committee. If it produced proposals that were truly cross-party, there would not be much objection from most Conservative Members.

Robin Cook: The hon. Gentleman has made one of the most gracious pleas for a post that I have heard. I shall bear his volunteering in mind. As I told the House, it is important that as the Leader of the House I should take a close, personal interest in the Modernisation Committee and be involved in its decisions. Also, the hon. Gentleman's characterisation of how the Committee arrives at its recommendations is not borne out by the nature of the conclusions of the report. There is no evidence that--

Dominic Grieve: rose--

Robin Cook: I will not give way. I am still responding to the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend on the Back Benches. I have to defend the rights of Back Benchers in the House, too. There is no evidence in the report that my predecessor manipulated the Modernisation Committee or imposed a conclusion on it. Indeed, the initial recommendation for programme motions was unanimous on the part of the Committee--including all the then Conservative members of the Committee.

Paul Tyler: Can I confirm, as a member of the Committee, that although the details of the motion have obviously come from the right hon. Gentleman's office, the father of the idea behind it was certainly the former Member for East Devon, Sir Peter Emery, who was a distinguished Member and who chaired the Procedure Committee for some time? In due modesty, it is also fair to say that I share some responsibility as a godparent with the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin). So the proposals were the result of an all-party approach. That does not mean that I take responsibility for the motion, but it would be a gross calumny to suggest that somehow the proposals have simply emanated from the Government.

Robin Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out that the parentage of this project is shared by many hon. Members of all parties. I had it in mind to pay tribute to Sir Peter Emery and am pleased to echo what the hon. Gentleman said--that after many years of distinguished service in and experience of the House, he was able to participate fully in some of the radical proposals for modernising our procedures.
	The motion on deferred Divisions, which is the second on the Order Paper, is identical to the motion that the House considered in the previous Session. It flows from the proposal of the Modernisation Committee, which reasonably justified it on the basis that it would
	"allow Members to debate business after 10 pm without requiring other Members who did not wish to take part in the debate to remain in the building late at night waiting for a division which might in the event not take place."
	The experiment on deferred Divisions has already shown one clear result: many more Members are able to vote--[Interruption.] I honestly do not know why Conservative Members, who were complaining earlier about low turnout, should find it hilarious that the procedure allows more Members to participate in decision making. The more Members participate, the more we can be confident that the decision represents the considered judgment of the House.

Angela Browning: The reference is presumably to Members for whom it is convenient to attend only on a Wednesday afternoon. How has the Prime Minister's voting record improved since deferred voting?

Robin Cook: The hon. Lady can certainly pursue that matter with me and I will happily write and advise her. I must confess--this may be a failing on my part--that I cannot share with her the voting record of every one of the 659 Members of this House, including the Prime Minister.
	I draw the hon. Lady's attention, however, to the vote on 19 December on child support. In the deferred Division on that vote, 522 Members voted aye and only five voted no. If we had not had the deferred Division arrangement on that occasion those five Members would have kept more than 500 here until midnight to record their view. As a result of the deferred Division, those five Members were able to express their view and the Members who opposed them could also all take part in the vote, when many of them would not have been able to do so had it not been for that arrangement.
	It is very difficult not to reach an interim conclusion that deferred Divisions have suited the interests of hon. Members and enabled many more of them to take part. [Interruption.] I remind the Opposition Members who are speaking from sedentary positions that not all 522 Members took the Labour Whip, so plainly the arrangement was of benefit to many Members other than those on the Government Benches.
	The other motion provides for the continuation of the experiment with programme motions. The Modernisation Committee twice recommended doing so in the previous Session. On the first occasion, it did so by consensus, but I fully concede that it did so on the second occasion without the support of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) and another Conservative Member. It is worth recalling that when the Modernisation Committee first, by consensus, recommended programming motions, it explicitly did so because it believed that they would improve the House's capacity to scrutinise legislation.
	Let us be honest and realistic. Before programming, Governments of both colours--certainly including the Government who preceded us in office for 18 years--got their legislation by guillotine: a crude device, by which the first half dozen clauses in a Bill might be debated at great length and, frankly, with a lot of time wasting in the process, with the result that there was enforced silence on subsequent clauses. That does not tend towards the effective scrutiny of the whole Bill and of Government legislation. That is why the Modernisation Committee recommended programming and said in its report that it was doing so because it would benefit Opposition parties and Back Benchers, who would have a greater opportunity to debate and vote on the issues of most concern to them.

Kevin Hughes: I should like to try to solicit an assurance from my right hon. Friend. As he knows, until a few weeks ago, I was part of the usual channels. I guess that I am now part of the unusual channels. I had the privilege of whipping five major Bills through the House for the Government. On each occasion, I managed to reach an agreement with the Opposition Whips on timetabling in Committee and on Report and Third Reading, and I think that that worked very successfully. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Government attach timetable motions to Bills only when they cannot secure an agreement with the Opposition?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend asks a question that I was asked at business questions last week by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), who invited me to show good will by not programming every Bill. As I told him at the time, good will has to be a two-way street, and it is sometimes not easy to find that good will or common sense. Indeed, there was a classic case in the previous Parliament, when the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Act 2000--an unobjectionable, even tedious measure--took longer to be considered on the Floor of the House during its remaining stages than was taken in Committee, thus prompting a guillotine.

Desmond Swayne: rose--

Robin Cook: Let me finish the point. [Interruption.] We had several hours' debate on the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Act 2000 and I do not propose to reopen the matter. Although I would not necessarily expect to carry the hon. Gentleman with me in a spirit of consensus, I understand that this is a new Parliament and that hon. Members have a new spirit, so I am willing to attempt an experiment in finding out whether such good will can be reciprocated.

Desmond Swayne: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Robin Cook: No, I will not. The Homelessness Bill will be the first Bill to receive its Second Reading next week. May I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) and the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire that it is not our intention to move a programme motion on the Second Reading of that Bill? It is a short Bill and similar clauses were debated in full in the previous Parliament. It is not particularly contentious. Indeed, it has support in all parties. That will be a fair opportunity to test whether the good will exists to enable serious scrutiny of Bills without programme motions, rather than frivolous time wasting. I assure my hon. Friend that if the good will exists to proceed by agreement and consensus, without a programme motion, we can renew that experiment on a future occasion.

Several hon. Members: rose--

Robin Cook: I give way to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), in the interests of his own health.

Desmond Swayne: Will the right hon. Gentleman abandon the practice, which was common when the experiment began in the previous Parliament, of publishing the programme motion before the Government have even heard the Second Reading debate? It was absurd and insulting that the Government could decide what the outcome of the programme motion should be without actually having tested the opinion of the House or found out what issues would be raised on Second Reading. Good will would be generated if the right hon. Gentleman were to abandon that practice.

Robin Cook: I am very glad to hear the hon. Gentleman's last sentence, because I think that I can help him. The effect of our motion on programming would indeed be to introduce a programme motion on Second Reading--I shall explain why in a moment--but it also introduces an innovation: in response to the Modernisation Committee recommendation, the Standing Committee considering a Bill may recommend a later out date than that set at the time of Second Reading.
	Under the motion on programming that the House is invited to consider, if the Standing Committee makes a recommendation, the Government will be obliged to table that recommendation, which will be taken forthwith. However, if the Government reject the Standing Committee recommendation and table a different out date, it will be debatable. That would give the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) an opportunity to address the House at length, which is a strong incentive to the Government to accept the Standing Committee recommendation and deal with it forthwith.
	I can respond to the concern expressed by the hon. Member for New Forest, West by saying that if those dealing with the Bill conclude that the out date set at Second Reading is unreasonable, it can be changed by a resolution of the House. The Government will be obliged to table the necessary motion, but the House will take a decision on it.

Douglas Hogg: The Standing Committee will be dominated by the Government.

Robin Cook: The right hon. and learned Gentleman appears to challenge the fact that the Standing Committee will have a Government majority. I can do nothing about the fact that the Government have a majority. Indeed, if I were to do so, it would be an affront to parliamentary democracy because it would not only deny the Government their policy, but deny the will of the majority of the House of Commons.

Several hon. Members: rose--

Robin Cook: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike).

Peter Pike: I understand why my right hon. Friend refers to good will and moving in that direction. I have considered such matters seriously for several years and have been involved in the modernisation process since it began. Despite what the official Opposition or any other party may say, they can destroy good will at the drop of a hat. We must ensure that legislation makes sensible progress and that all the clauses of a Bill are scrutinised. From day one, the Modernisation Committee's objective has been to introduce sensible programme motions that allow debates on all the clauses that need to be debated and opposition from either side of the House to be considered properly.

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend expresses the view, which is held by several hon. Members, not just those on the Government Benches, that every Bill should be programmed. I am willing to attempt the experiment to discover what happens when we do not programme a Bill, but I agree with him that not only good will but discipline and self-restraint are required from all hon. Members if the House is to carry out its task of scrutiny.

Anne Campbell: I urge some caution in the course of action that my right hon. Friend proposes. I can recall several occasions in the previous Parliament when agreement on an unofficial timetable for a Bill was reached through the usual channels. However, it seems that Opposition Whips were not able to control Opposition Back Benchers--[Interruption.] and that often led to time-wasting and very late nights for all of us.

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend will welcome the fact that her proposition that the Opposition Whips were unable to control members of their party was heartily endorsed by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. Voluntary agreements are meaningful only if all members of the parties that reach them abide by them and support their Front-Bench spokesmen in such agreements.

Several hon. Members: rose--

Robin Cook: I will give way to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), but then I must make some progress because I have not even finished answering the question put by the hon. Member for New Forest, West.

Nicholas Winterton: I am a member of the Modernisation Committee which produced the report on which the Standing Orders that we are considering today are based. Will the Leader of the House confirm that paragraphs 4 and 5 of the report are fully taken into account in the Standing Order changes that we are discussing? Is he prepared to highlight the importance of the position of the Chairmen of Standing Committees, who could come from any of the parties in the House? They chair the Programming Sub-Committees. As they are pledged to impartiality, the Chairmen will take into account the interests of the House as a whole in the scrutiny of the legislation.

Robin Cook: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, on which I am happy to reassure him. The motion endeavours to give effect to paragraphs 4 and 5 of the report. I apologise to the House for the fact that giving effect to the dozen lines of those paragraphs requires so much legal jargon.
	I explained to the hon. Member for New Forest, West that the motion contains a provision for the Standing Committee to recommend a different out date, and that under the terms of the motion the Government must table that proposal within five sitting days. The motion contains a further provision; the Standing Committee will propose the length of the remaining stages and the allocation of time within that.
	The hon. Member for Macclesfield is right to say that the Programming Sub-Committee that makes the recommendation to the Standing Committee will be chaired by the Chair of the Standing Committee. That will bring an impartial and independent element to the discussion and he or she will be responsible for safeguarding the interests of the Opposition and Back Benchers. I know that the Chairman of Ways and Means takes a particular interest in the important role of the Chairmen of Standing Committees in chairing the Programming Sub-Committees.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) was an excellent member of the usual channels when he and I piloted the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill through Committee. We agreed at the start, with no timetable, that the Bill should come out of Committee six weeks later. It came out exactly on the dot. It would be a more sensible procedure not to timetable debates on Second Reading or in Committee. It is in Committee that omissions and lacunae in Bills are often exposed. It could then be decided whether it was necessary or desirable from the Government's point of view to timetable the remaining stages.

Robin Cook: In fairness to the House, it is helpful to the House if the Government are transparent and open about their target date for concluding the Committee proceedings. Let us get real. Every Government have always had a target date for the conclusion of Committee stages. I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) will be able to confirm that. The programme motion on Second Reading makes transparent the target date so that every hon. Member--not only the Official Opposition, but Back Benchers and members of the other parties--knows it.
	The motion before us today contains an innovation and improvement on last year's practice. If the Standing Committee becomes persuaded that the out date is unrealistic and that other matters need to be examined, it will be within its power to recommend a later out date. The Government must then put that before the House.

Derek Foster: I commend the spirit in which my right hon. Friend is dealing with the points raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It augurs well for what might occur during the rest of the Parliament.
	As one who had a PhD in opposition and used to orchestrate during 10 years as Opposition Chief Whip the sort of things that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) gets up to, I must advise my right hon. Friend that we must not be too sanctimonious. Indeed, I know that my right hon. Friend is the last one to be sanctimonious. There were many times when I did not have complete control over my Back Benchers. There were even more times when I pretended not to have control over them and colluded with them in frustrating the Government of the day. Such were the things that went on in this place.
	Is not our dilemma that every act of modernisation--I am broadly in favour of what has been done and what is proposed--tends to increase the power of the Executive vis-a-vis Parliament? It is all too easy for Labour Members to want to steamroller all opposition, but we ought to have some consideration because one of these days, not I but some of my colleagues might be in opposition again.

Robin Cook: I would have appreciated it if sometimes during the 18 years my right hon. Friend had made it clear that he was happy for us to rebel against his instructions. It might have made us easier in our consciences, if not in what we did, if we had been aware of that at the time. I disagree with the conclusion that he draws about the effect of programme motions. They can assist the House in its scrutiny. They enable the House to focus on issues of concern to Back Benchers and Opposition Members, in the full knowledge of what the timetable allows. Members can then resolve to participate in debates on the issues on which they wish to express their views.

Several hon. Members: rose--

Robin Cook: I think that I have already given way to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. I will make a special exception and give way for a second time in a moment.
	At present, under the threat of guillotine or even in the absence of a guillotine, all Government Back Benchers have to be quiet because there is no time for them to speak. The majority of hon. Members are Labour Members. Under a programme motion, when the timetable and the out date are clear, all hon. Members are free to speak on issues of concern to them.

Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman will remember from his previous experience in the House that interventions are not confined to one. Will he come back to the point that he made earlier that the purpose of timetabling is to enable Back Benchers to identify the main issues? Surely that is not the case. In the first place, the Programming Sub-Committee has a quorum of four so it almost certainly will not involve ordinary Back Benchers. In the second place, the motion before the House does not provide for debate on the timetable motion. It provides for the motion to be taken immediately. In other words, Back Benchers are precluded from expressing their view on those parts of the Bill on which they wish to focus or on the length of time to be taken in Committee.

Robin Cook: The right hon. and learned Gentleman deludes himself if he imagines that many Back Benchers both in the Chamber just now and outside it would not welcome the provision that programme motions be taken forthwith.

Dominic Grieve: The Leader of the House touched on the fact that one of the areas that will be covered by programme motions is the procedure when Bills come back from the House of Lords. How will the system work and be an improvement on the previous system of crude guillotining? For example, the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill enjoyed cross-party support, but we had 666 amendments from the Lords, of which 665 were Government amendments. There was no filibustering, but we had the chance to consider only 80 amendments in the time allocated under the Government's guillotine. One of the direct results was that we had to introduce subsequent legislation to correct the howler in relation to the imprint at the bottom of election literature.

Robin Cook: A programming motion must reflect the volume of amendments from another place. It can always be updated to take account of that. The Opposition should not pretend that there was a more generous allocation of time for scrutiny when they were in government. In the 1991-92 Session, in their last year in office before the 1992 election, they passed 33 Acts and spent 95 hours on Second Reading, 72 hours for all remaining stages and 696 hours in Standing Committee. In our last year before the 2001 election, we passed 21 Acts. Although that is a much smaller number, they were debated on Second Reading for 110 hours--15 more hours for a fewer number of Acts. The remaining stages took 72 hours--precisely the same as when the Conservatives were in office, although for fewer Bills. The legislation spent 690 hours in Standing Committee, which is less than 1 per cent. less than the time taken in the 1991-92 Session.
	By the benchmark that the Conservatives established in office, it is false to say that programming motions result in less time for scrutiny by the House. On the contrary, more time was available, proportionate to the number of Bills considered.

William Cash: Much of the discussion is about how much time is taken up, which raises the use of filibustering and the extent to which a particular Chairman construes whether that has occurred. I have grave reservations about whether the use of time is the best weapon for the Opposition, because it is better to use argument. However, it is true that the distortions to which the right hon. Gentleman refers are often a reflection of people misusing time and the Chairman not enforcing the rule on filibuster.

Robin Cook: I do not wish to assent to criticism of the Chair, but I agree that scrutiny can be effectively carried out by telling argument, not by the length of time that a speech takes. I speak with experience because I spent longer in opposition than any Conservative Member in the Chamber. It is possible for the Opposition to change legislation. The ingredients for successful scrutiny to challenge and change legislation are persuasive argument, mobilisation of the public to express their view and the formation of alliances across the Floor of the House with other Members who can be persuaded to share the same opinion. On that basis, we were sometimes successful in changing legislation while in opposition. I remember forming an alliance, which I can now admit to my hon. Friends, with the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) to amend the Community Care Bill. We did that with the substantial support of the country.
	In my long years in opposition, I rarely saw policy or legislation seriously challenged by the wasting of the House's time. The general effect of such activity united those on the Government Benches in their determination to see a measure through. That is the result of much of what the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst does, which is why I tabled a motion today to enable the House to accept the programming motions forthwith as recommended by the Modernisation Committee.
	There are no medals for spending long hours in the Chamber; nor does our legislation necessarily benefit from long hours. We sit for longer than most democratic Parliaments and it is not self-evident that the quality of our law making is any better. There is nothing to be proud of in a culture of long hours. In my time, I have put in as many hours as any other hon. Member. Indeed, I was locked in the Library twice when I was shadow health spokesman because the custodian took the reasonable view that, as the House had risen and everyone else had gone home, no one would be in there. I have no objection to Opposition Members staying in the House or Library until they are locked in--indeed, I can arrange that for anyone who volunteers--but there is no reason why those who want to work all hours of the night should be allowed to force the rest of the House to keep them company.
	I commend the motion to the House as a valuable foundation for the efficient use of our time and effective scrutiny of Government legislation.

Angela Browning: This subject is truly a House of Commons matter. It affects the rights of all Members of Parliament to fulfil the important function of scrutinising legislation and of tabling and debating amendments to ensure that the Executive is held to account.
	The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) made his point well. Although the term "modernisation" is frequently used, what is done in its name does not strengthen Parliament, the Chamber or the rights of hon. Members on both sides of the House to hold the Executive to account. Instead, it strengthens the Executive. Since I became shadow Leader of the House, I have objected strongly, and shall continue to do so until I leave this post, on a point of principle that the so-called Modernisation Committee should be chaired by a Minister--specifically, the Leader of the House, who has a responsibility to protect the rights and duties of Members of Parliament.
	The Modernisation Committee under this Government and formed by this Government is no less than a tool of this Government. It is outrageous that it should be used in such a way by them, and by the Leader of the House in particular, to introduce changes that affect the Standing Orders and the rights of the House so that we depart from the tradition of seeking consensus across the House. Consensus should not be sought in just one Committee, because that goes against the grain of what we have always understood to be the rights of hon. Members.

Eric Forth: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Liberal Democrats--who now make the ludicrous claim that they are some sort of opposition--have done nothing but work hand in glove with the Government on the Modernisation Committee to contrive to reduce the opportunities available for opposition and have acted as their tool?

Angela Browning: As always, my right hon. Friend is right. However, I add a caveat. The new Liberal Democrat Chief Whip for the Modernisation Committee expressed concern about the way in which legislation passed through the House, especially in the previous Parliament. I hope that my right hon. Friend is as hopeful as I am about that development. That Chief Whip was worried, as many of us were, about the guillotining of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill and the fact that more than 600 Lords amendments were not scrutinised by the Chamber. Much of the Bill will need to be tidied up and put right by us because problems were not properly addressed at the time. Indeed, just before the House rose for the general election, the imprints--an important aspect of the Bill--had to be reconsidered.
	It is to no one's advantage if legislation is not properly scrutinised and challenged before it becomes an Act. I suspect that much of the legislation that was passed in the previous Parliament will cause great problems, not least because people ask about our intention behind the laws that we enact. If it has not even been scrutinised or debated, if there is no official record of the intent of the House at the time, how can we say that we are the legislators? Once it is seen that Parliament did not address matters, people outside will second-guess its intent. That is not the way in which any legislature should behave.
	I say to the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) in all sincerity that it is the job of the Leader of the House to ensure that there are procedures that respect the right of all of us--in government or in opposition or on the Front or Back Benches--not only to challenge the Executive but to do our job in scrutinising and amending legislation.

Richard Shepherd: Is not there a curiosity in all this? Although the Liberals have indicated their great support for these measures, as they have throughout, when it has come to implementing them, they have voted against every guillotine motion. That is contradictory. That did not enable the Leader of the House to reflect on what was happening in practice and on the fact that our opposition is based on experience, not theory.

Angela Browning: That is exactly right. I must at this stage put on record my grateful thanks to my hon. Friend, who has stood shoulder to shoulder with me in the Modernisation Committee to try to ensure that those of us who have grave concerns have them put on the record of the Committee's proceedings.

William Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is another substantive point about the chairmanship of the Modernisation Committee? As I said in yesterday's debate on the constitution, and certainly according to past conventions of the House, all Select Committees that are scrutiny Committees should automatically be chaired by an Opposition Member. The Public Accounts Committee is so chaired, although we face a disgraceful situation concerning the European Scrutiny Committee. I have great respect for its Chairman; this is not a personal objection. Am I right that there will not be the independence in Parliament for which people are calling if the naked exercise of power through the Whips and the appointment of Chairmen of those Committees is not sorted out? That is a fundamental question on which the debate should turn.

Angela Browning: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Since becoming shadow Leader of the House, I have made that point myself. Indeed, the point is not just that a Select Committee is chaired by a member of the Government--the Leader of the House--but that, interestingly, the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Leader of the House took a place on that Committee. I do not know whether that will be so in future. The Committee is a tool of the Government. It was intended to be so by this Government. This Government intended to ensure that, under the guise of a Select Committee, they could change the Standing Orders. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, given tradition and what we know and understand of Select Committees, it is of course nothing of the sort.
	I would not necessarily press for such a Committee to be chaired by a member of the Opposition. I would happily accept a Back-Bench Chairman of any party in the House. The Committee deals with matters to do with the House. It is therefore not just entirely inappropriate but obscene that it is chaired by a member of the Government.

Joan Ruddock: The hon. Lady is making a great deal of bluster about the Committee and its formulation. Let us consider the points under debate. She is suggesting that the programming of business is worse than the guillotining that her Government undertook. I remember very well from the decade that I spent in opposition the very problems to which she has alluded about tabling many amendments at the last minute and the difficulty of interpreting legislation in the country. We ought to get to the heart of the matter, which is the value of programming business.

Angela Browning: I shall come to that in a moment when I will be happy to quote--I am sure that the hon. Lady will be interested to hear it--the letter that I received at the beginning of the year from the then Leader of the House acknowledging that the motions on programming before the House in November, for which, as I recall, the hon. Lady voted enthusiastically, had not worked and that there were great problems. It is only because that went on record that the Modernisation Committee addressed those great problems.
	If the hon. Lady really wants to get to the heart of the matter, let us do so. This is not about the rights of Members of Parliament and scrutiny of legislation. We know the Government's view on scrutinising legislation. Owing to their majority, they are prepared to allow Back Benchers constituency weeks away from this place. It is clear that, according to the Government's philosophy, an MP's role is not, as we have always understood it to be, two-fold--to represent one's constituents and ensure that constituency issues are dealt with, and to scrutinise legislation and hold the Executive to account. The Government are enthusiastically changing that role. They did so in the previous Parliament and they are clearly encouraging it in this one. They want to turn everybody into glorified social workers while they dictate how the country will be run.

David Winnick: In response to what the hon. Lady said about Chairs of Select Committees, does she recall the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) being Chairman of the Health Committee? To his credit, the Government of the day considered him unreliable and he was replaced by another Conservative Member, Sir John Wheeler, who was considered totally safe.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In the past few minutes, we have been moving away from the substance of the motion to historical tales. I realise that there are connected matters, but we must try to concentrate on the motion before the House.

Angela Browning: I shall of course be happy to respond to that intervention in next week's debate, when it would be more appropriate to do so. The hon. Gentleman will not be disappointed by my reply.
	Without going through everything that I said when we dealt with deferred Divisions and programme motions in November, as that is on the record, I shall reiterate my key objections to them. First, deferred Divisions divorce the debate from the vote. It is critical that the vote follows the debate. The ballot paper that can be handed in between 3.30 pm and 5 pm could be filled in by any third party anywhere. [Hon. Members: "No."] The fact that Labour Members do not think that that is a matter of concern shows clearly that they do not understand the way in which the procedures of the House have developed over many years. They may think that the procedures are old-fashioned and anachronistic, but Members have always been able to go through the Lobby following the debate unencumbered by the influence of any external third party.
	I am talking about the sort of third-party influence that was seen in the 19th century--that is going back a bit--which affected the way in which Members voted. [Interruption.] We have procedures in this House as a result of which Members are unencumbered when they vote at the sound of the Division Bell immediately following the debate.

Anne Campbell: rose--

Angela Browning: The hon. Lady is clearly one of those who thinks that it does not matter if a third party has access to a Member when voting. Ballot papers that are available in the morning could be filled in by anybody. Coercion could be used. A third party could stand over a Member of Parliament while they filled in that ballot paper. Government Members shake their heads, but the freedom and the right of a Member of Parliament to proceed unaccosted to the Lobby following a debate to make sure that when their vote is cast they are not subject to third-party influence is rooted in history.

Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend comes to an issue that has done more than any other to lower the House in the country's esteem--the fact that Members of Parliament no longer speak their mind or vote according to their opinion. What she is really saying is that we should diminish the control of party over this place--we should try to diminish the control of the Whips over the party. Does my hon. Friend not agree that we should assert the independence of Back Benchers and the freedom from party control?

Angela Browning: Never mind Back Benchers--we should also assert the rights of Front Benchers.
	Let me share with the House the results of an experiment that I carried out a little while ago with one of the deferred Divisions. I simply looked at the questions on the paper, filled it in as I thought fit and waited to see what would happen. I am pleased to say that nothing did. The point is that it represents a departure from an important principle--although it might not be important to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), who is trying to intervene--which is that we discharge our duties in the Division following a debate.

Anne Campbell: The hon. Lady is making a wholly spurious point. Every Member of Parliament who goes into the Lobby with a piece of paper is responsible for what is written on that paper. She is trying to pretend otherwise, but her argument has no basis in reality.

Angela Browning: There is a distinction to be drawn. Members of Parliament can be faced with multiple votes on a piece of paper, some of which deal with highly emotive issues that attract especially active lobby groups or constituency activists who want to influence the way in which that Member of Parliament votes. It is quite possible that the day will dawn when the public, having finally realised the way in which our voting system has been changed, will demand to see the hon. Lady fill in her ballot paper, and might even stand over while she does it. [Hon. Members: "No!"] Government Members dismiss that scenario, but if they are never subject to third-party influence when they vote, we must all assume that the little notes that they read out so politely during Prime Ministers questions and on every other occasion are not, in fact, written for them by people at Millbank tower. Perhaps the Minister who winds up the debate will tell us whether Millbank tower or the Whips ever issue any direction on how ballot papers are to be filled in.
	In some ways, programme motions cause me greater concern. When they were introduced, it was suggested that they would benefit the Opposition--that, provided that a final date was agreed for the Bill to complete its passage, the Opposition and any Labour Back Bencher who was sufficiently strong minded to challenge the Government would have the opportunity in the preceding stages to ensure that proper scrutiny and time were given to challenge the detail of the Bill. However, that is not what happened after the change was made to our Sessional Orders in November last year. The change was not made to assist either the Opposition or Back Benchers; it was made purely to ensure not only that the Government got their business but that they did so with important parts of legislation being allowed to proceed through both Houses of Parliament without having been properly scrutinised and without the Opposition having been able to challenge the detail or speak to amendments.
	I mentioned a letter from the previous Leader of the House, who wrote to me on 30 January:
	"You will recall I undertook at business questions . . . in response to Sir Peter Emery, to remind all my Ministerial colleagues of the purpose of the new procedures on programming, given the expressed view from your benches that the Government is not paying sufficient attention to the interests of Opposition parties when establishing programmes for legislation.
	I have now done so. In particular, I have stressed that . . . it was agreed that in return for the Government securing each Bill by a particular date, the Opposition parties and other non-Government interests would have the major say in how"--
	that word was underlined--
	"the available time is used."
	Would that that were so. Despite that letter, as legislation proceeded through the House, as Minister after Minister came to the Dispatch Box on Second Reading, and as other Members presided over the Programming Sub- Committees and deliberations in Standing Committee, matters went from bad to worse, culminating in the travesty of proceedings on the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001.
	As a result of that, the Modernisation Committee met to recommend further changes. One might have thought that the changes would be designed to make procedures more flexible and to give the House, Back Benchers and the Opposition greater opportunity to challenge and scrutinise. Instead, the Modernisation Committee, chaired by the Leader of the House, produced its first report. As the House will be aware, it contained a memorandum submitted by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge- Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and myself, because neither of us were content with the so-called "repairing" job that that Committee had attempted in order to correct the clear deficiencies in the Orders to which the House agreed in November last year.
	I shall not read out the whole memorandum, but I shall repeat some of the points made therein. I should point out that the reason why it was a memorandum and not a minority report was that such are the procedures of the Modernisation Committee that I was prevented from tabling such a report. Because of the shambles resulting from the fact that the rules of that Committee appear to be made up as they go along, I, a member of the official Opposition, was not permitted to table a minority report as I had asked to be allowed to do. Only after my hon. Friend and I insisted were we able to get even a memorandum appended to the report of the Committee. The House will not be surprised to hear me repeat that the Modernisation Committee is a tool of government: it has no interest at all in dissenting views or the views of the official Opposition.
	On Second Reading of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, the Minister had stated how many sittings of the Standing Committee he thought would be required, but he reneged on that promise when the Programming Sub-Committee met to discuss the matter. The Standing Committee ran out of time to such an extent that, as it reached its final sitting, it had dealt with only 90 of the Bill's 132 clauses. That made it necessary for my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and three other Opposition Members to sit in that Committee and demonstrate their grave concern that its proceedings were to be guillotined and that it was being forced to complete its business without having scrutinised important parts of the Bill.

Kevin Hughes: Does the hon. Lady agree that we are debating these motions, which I think are unnecessary and inappropriate, not for the sake of proper scrutiny, but because of the time-wasting tactics used by the provisional wing of the Tory party, led by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and others?

Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) to claim that there was time wasting in the Committee that considered the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, given that the Chairman of that Committee made a specific ruling to the effect that there had been no time wasting? In fact, that is the scandal of what occurred.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a point of argument, not a point of order.

Angela Browning: I am happy to say that the Hansard Committee record shows that both Chairmen confirmed that there was not time wasting. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) agreed with that. That is mentioned in the memorandum that is attached to the first report of the Modernisation Committee.

John Bercow: My hon. Friend's recollection is a precise and damning indictment of the Government's handling of this sorry saga. Does she recall that the Leader of the House, in one of his attempted purple passages, sought to justify programme motions on the grounds of candour, openness and transparency? Will she confirm that that claim is flatly contradicted by the practice of the Programming Sub-Committees, which do not meet in public, which do not provide a verbatim transcript of their proceedings, and which do not even have the courtesy to provide Members with a minute of their deliberations?

Angela Browning: That is right. It is one of my on-going complaints, which I shall reiterate. Such Committees, especially as they have voting rights, should record their deliberations, including voting records.
	The hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) suggested that it was the time wasting of some Conservative Back Benchers that caused the Modernisation Committee to recommend, and the new Leader of the House to agree, as on the Order Paper, that no longer should the House discuss a programme motion for 45 minutes before it goes to the Programming Sub-Committee. That is a serious misjudgment, for two reasons.
	During a Second Reading debate, some of the issues about which there is concern--for example, what might be in the Bill or how it will be taken forward--emerge only during Back Benchers' representations and contributions. All too often it falls to the Minister who responds to the debate to answer the specific questions that have been raised. It is not until the conclusion of Second Reading that many Back Benchers--it is to be assumed that those who speak on Second Reading often have a particular interest in the subject, and perhaps wish to serve on the Standing Committee--have their specific questions answered.
	If Back Benchers hear the answers to their questions in the Minister's response, they will have signs of the sort of issues that will be raised in Committee and the time that will be needed, especially in terms of apportionment between certain parts of the Bill. Some parts will be long in print, but they will not take up too much time in Committee. It is often as a result of detail coming forward from Ministers that many amendments need to be tabled. If the House is to be denied the opportunity of a 45-minute debate--a member of the Committee will not necessarily be a member of the Programming Sub-Committee--Back Benchers on both sides of the House will be denied the opportunity to make their contribution to an important part of the deliberations in Committee.

Graham Allen: I thank the hon. Lady for her characteristic generosity in giving way to me and apologise to her for missing the centre portion of her speech.
	I feel that someone must come to the defence of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). Does the hon. Lady agree that it is true that he, by his antics over the past year or so, has done far more for the modernisation of this place than serious-minded reformers like myself managed in 14 years or more?

Angela Browning: We have a dichotomy. What do we mean by modernisation? We know what the Leader of the House--along with many Labour Back Benchers, I suspect--means by it. He means getting away from here at 10 o'clock. I remind the hon. Gentleman that there is a balance to be struck between getting away from here at a reasonable time and discharging our duties as Members. That is why I referred to the dual role of a Member. It suits the Government increasingly to regard the role of Members on both sides of the House as being confined to looking after their constituency interests. Important as that is, the role of a Member is that of scrutiny and challenge. We must have ample opportunity, for example, to table amendments at the various stages of a Bill's consideration, and to speak to them if Mr. Speaker has been gracious enough to select them for debate. I am worried that so-called modernisation does not enhance that process. It does not strengthen the ability of Back Benchers to participate. Instead, it restricts it.
	We are getting rid of the 45-minute debate following Second Reading, and there is concern about the way in which the guillotine will fall, when only outstanding Government amendments will be dealt with. Where does a Back Bencher on either side of the House go to express what may be a deeply held belief about important issues within the context of a Bill?
	I return to what I have euphemistically described as the actions of the Maidstone Four. They felt obliged to attend a sitting of a Standing Committee in its concluding minutes when the guillotine fell and large and important parts of the Bill concerning the police force had not been dealt with by the Committee.
	Unless Back Benchers can see in our procedures a reasonable opportunity to table and speak to amendments on matters of importance and often of principle to them, the only alternative will be for more Members to take action such as that taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald or--I hope that this does not happen--action similar to that taken in earlier Parliaments by hon. Members on both sides of the House, who felt that the only way to demonstrate their frustration was to wave the Mace about. Let us not go down that route. That is not modernisation. Such action reflects the sheer frustration of Members at the fact that their will is being subsumed by a Government who are unwilling and ungenerous enough not to strengthen the rights of Back Benchers and instead curtail and usurp them through the deliberations of a Committee that is in the palm of government.
	The Leader of the House ain't seen nothing yet if he thinks that what he saw in the previous Parliament will be acceptable in this Parliament, with badly drafted legislation being guillotined at every stage of its consideration as it passes through the House, and possibly in the upper Chamber, if that is what the Government plan to do. That is not modernisation by anybody's definition.
	The motion is not about proper scrutiny. It is about getting away from the House by 10 o'clock. That is the benchmark that has been set. The Leader of the House touched on the matter briefly in his remarks last night, when he said:
	"it does not seem entirely unreasonable that we should allow colleagues to go home at 10 o'clock at night. Members of any other profession would regard that as a very minimum working condition."--[Official Report, 27 June 2001; Vol. 370, c. 739.]
	I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the very definition of "profession". People who regard their work in life as professional do not set deadlines for when they clock off. The definition of professional is seeing the job through until it is completed, and doing so in such a way that standards are upheld so as to ensure that the job is well done.
	If the House and its proceedings are not to be professional in the definition to which I have referred and if we are to clock off before the job is finished or before it has been properly done, it is not only hon. Members but the country who will be the poorer. There are many hon. Members, including myself, who did not come to this place just to clock off. If that is what the Leader of the House means by modernisation, he should be only too well aware that future generations will spend a great deal of time trying to put right the legislation that the Labour Government, both in the previous Parliament and in this one, bequeathed to the nation, because it will be bad legislation. That will be the hallmark of what the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour Government pass on to future generations.

Mark Fisher: The danger of our debate is that it provides a false choice for the House between programme motions--which undoubtedly will restrict time, one of the weapons of Parliament and the Opposition--and the status quo prior to their introduction. The idea that earlier arrangements were a desirable or effective way of conducting business in the House is a dangerous fallacy to which those of us who are extremely worried about aspects of programme motions can easily fall prey.
	As Sir Edward Heath, the former Prime Minister and Conservative leader, said in his final speech to the House before the election, Parliament's ability to hold the Government to account and scrutinise them has been getting weaker for a long time--about 50 years, he estimated. Unlike one of his predecessors, Winston Churchill, Sir Edward was never a great historian; in fact that weakness goes back to the Reform Act 1884 and the Parnell debates. Parnell obstructed the work of the House so much that both Front Benches got together and augmented the four Standing Orders that the House had with a great raft of further orders, on which every Government since have built. As has been said by many speakers in our preliminary debate on the business of the House and in this debate, all those changes to scrutiny in the House have had the effect of strengthening the Government and weakening Parliament's ability to hold them to account.
	In seeking, quite properly and sensibly, more orderly debate, programme motions are strangling time--the one weapon left to the House. However, it is the weakest, crudest and least interesting weapon that we could possibly have, and my hon. Friends are right to say that the abuse of time does not help anybody at all; it does not help scrutiny or debate, does not help us to achieve better conclusions and is the most idiotic of weapons. However, it is the only one that Parliament has left. After 150 years, there are far too few weapons in the armoury of Parliament or the Opposition.

William Cash: The hon. Gentleman made an interesting reference to a late 19th-century Session. He will of course recall that the former distinguished Clerk of the House, Sir Edward Fellowes, made the point that that autumn Session was devoted exclusively to transferring the rules and powers of the Speaker to the Executive--in effect, the Whips. In 1969, or whenever Sir Edward wrote his book, he said that, at that moment, the power of Back Benchers and Parliament was reduced. Parliament has not regained its strength since.
	Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in the past 25 or 30 years, the situation has got progressively worse and that this is the time for Parliament to get it right? It would be a disorganised hypocrisy for the Leader of the House not to do so.

Mark Fisher: I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, who is right to link the problem to that period and to the essays and contributions to the history of the House of the former Clerk of the House, Sir Edward Fellowes.
	We have got to find a third and better way--[Hon. Members: "Ah!"] I agree that programme motions could easily be abused by this Government or a future Government and could severely restrict the ability of the House to hold any Government to account. However, arrangements that we had in the recent past were no good either, and there will be no chance to improve scrutiny in the House unless we compensate Parliament and the Opposition for taking away time--which is used to hold to account and scrutinise the Government--and put other weapons in the armoury of Parliament.

Desmond Swayne: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that not only are we taking time from the Opposition via such motions but we are giving the Government a powerful time-management tool, which will be used most brutally when there is dissent from Labour Members? Debate is arranged so that a Government trustee will take up the available time to agree at length with the Government, to the exclusion of the dissenting voices of the hon. Gentleman's own colleagues?

Mark Fisher: It is not yet clear whether the motions will improve the scrutiny that Parliament can apply to legislation. Nobody participating in our debate has addressed the valid point made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House--that the crucial weapon is not time but the quality of argument. How do we provide Parliament and the Opposition--indeed, all Members of Parliament--with the opportunity to focus on the quality of argument before legislation is introduced, while it is being introduced and when it has been properly considered? We should consider how to get that quality instead of being seduced by the idea that spending a lot of time on legislation improves scrutiny, because it does not.

Eric Forth: It is difficult to give any credence to the hon. Gentleman's case about the quality of argument when members of his Government, including those on the Front Bench and in the Modernisation Committee, introduced the device of deferred Divisions which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) pointed out, has divided and separated argument from voting. How can we give any credence to the assertion that the quality of argument will change hearts and minds and, perhaps, votes in the House, if someone who has never had a chance to hear the argument or--who knows?--even read it is expected to cast a vote in one of those peculiar deferred Divisions?

Mark Fisher: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on many aspects of this matter, but his obsessive, conspiratorial arguments against deferred Divisions rather miss the point. I take the point of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) that, in an ideal world, the vote follows the debate in quick succession, but the worry about deferred Divisions is much less significant than the one about a new set of programme motions that are not compensated for by other methods of improving the quality of scrutiny in the House.

Douglas Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is making a serious contribution, which the House appreciates.
	I shall make three quick suggestions. First, the Government should always introduce Bills a long time before Second Reading so that there is ample time for discussion by interested groups. Secondly, we should look again at the Special Standing Committee procedure, so that such Committees can take evidence from interested groups before a Bill goes into Committee. Thirdly, we should have much less legislation in every Session so that there is not so much time pressure.

Mark Fisher: I am grateful for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention, which is of the quality that ought to be brought to this debate. The weakness of the case of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton and, indeed, of her memorandum--with whose spirit and critique I sympathise--is that they provide no alternative ways of improving the quality of scrutiny in the House. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has done the House a great service by suggesting some clear and simple ways in which scrutiny could be improved. We simply do not make enough of pre-legislative scrutiny; we do not engage in advance the skills and expertise of people who will be subject to our scrutiny. We ought always to have a standard for all important Bills and have a scrutiny stage prior to a Bill's Committee stage; those who understand the implications of the legislation should have an opportunity to engage with Members and say, "Look, the Bill will not work like that. It is well intentioned and we can see the thrust, but it will not work like that." As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, better pre-legislative scrutiny has a role to play, but we also need to strengthen the structure of scrutiny, especially in Select Committees. That matter has been discussed already, and will be discussed again.

Richard Shepherd: Quality of argument is related to time, and the amount of time available for debate is entirely in the hands of the Government. The Opposition's objections result from experience. The Bill that became the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 has been mentioned. Liberal Democrat Members opposed every guillotine imposed on that Bill.
	The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) spoke about rational alternative schemes. I would love to engage in a debate on such possibilities, but we have to address and vote on the motion before the House.

Mark Fisher: I seldom disagree with the hon. Gentleman on matters to do with the House or the constitution, but I do not agree with what he has just said. I shall try to demonstrate that a useful contribution can be made in a short time. I shall sit down forthwith when I have made the points that I want to make.
	I do not agree with the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) that the quality of an argument or debate depends on the time that is available for it. All hon. Members can speak much more concisely, briefly and in a way that holds the House's attention so that points can be made more quickly. I do not think that the quality of debate or scrutiny is reduced when contributions from Back-Bench Members are restricted to 10 minutes. On the contrary: such a time limit focuses minds.

John Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mark Fisher: Very briefly, as I wish to live by my own precepts.

John Bercow: I understand the vantage point from which the hon. Gentleman approaches the matter, and his general principle is that the maximisation of time is not necessary for the effective scrutiny of legislation. However, does he accept that it is at least reasonable to observe that, when the Government insist on a programme motion that represents something of a truncation of debate, it is not reasonable for them also to demonstrate that they have an insatiable appetite for amendments? It is common for several hundred Government amendments to be tabled towards the end of proceedings on a Bill, when less than a couple of minutes can be allowed for debate on each. Is that not wrong?

Mark Fisher: I agree. Any legislation that goes through the House without debate or scrutiny is an insult to the public. It is extremely dangerous to pass ill-considered legislation.
	However, Oppositions have often been guilty of hindering that scrutiny. The first Standing Committee to which I belonged was the one considering the Bill to privatise British Telecom. My colleague and friend Mr. John Golding told me how to operate in Standing Committee. We kept that Committee going for more than three months, thinking that we were doing a brave, noble and determined thing. It was an example of machismo politics, and it was quite understandable when the then Government guillotined the Bill after three months, saying, "This is ridiculous; enough is enough."
	As a result of our tactics, most of the Bill was never discussed in the Standing Committee. With the benefit of 18 years of hindsight, I now think that our opposition--in which I believed totally at the time--was thoroughly misguided. British Telecom has probably performed better than when it was in public hands. However, parts of the Bill were never scrutinised. It is an insult to the public and the House when such important legislation can go through in that way.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I have one simple question for my hon. Friend. Had that Bill been guillotined in the way proposed today, is he certain that the elements that were not scrutinised would have been looked at? Would all the drafting have been improved? Would all the clauses have been debated? I have considerable reservations about that.

Mark Fisher: I wonder whether my hon. Friend meant to say, "Had that Bill not been guillotined," because it was in fact guillotined. However, even if it had not been so guillotined, it is possible that we would not have made progress. We had got hardly one third of the way through what was a long and complicated Bill.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: My question was based on that Bill being guillotined in the way that is proposed today.

Mark Fisher: The Bill was not guillotined in the manner set out in the proposals before the House today, but it was ruthlessly guillotined. As I said, I now sympathise with that guillotine, and believe that the then Government were right to be impatient with the rather crude tactics employed by the then Opposition. We did not do justice to the Bill, and we did not allow the Standing Committee to do justice to an important piece of legislation. My point is that Oppositions can constrict debate as much as Governments.
	The job of hon. Members of all parties is to improve the scrutiny of legislation and to hold the Government to account.

Lynne Jones: It has become clear to me in the time that I have been a Member of the House that the key to better scrutiny of legislation is a more effective Committee stage. If the Government want to reduce the power of Back-Bench Members to waste time--and I agree with that aim--they should also be more willing to enhance scrutiny at the Committee stage. That might be achieved by appointing more independent people to the Committees. My own offers to serve in that way have often been turned down.
	I agree that Special Standing Committees should be used more often, but only if they are allowed to come to some conclusion. They should be required to produce a report to the Government, containing recommendations about whether proposals in legislation will achieve what they are intended to achieve.

Mark Fisher: My hon. Friend knows that I have much sympathy with what she has said, and that I acknowledge the independence with which she always speaks in the House.
	I have detained the House long enough. The thrust of my remarks is clear, and it is that we are getting the balance wrong. I do not see how the motions before us will improve scrutiny, although they will make business and the House more orderly.

Dominic Grieve: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government cannot impose orderliness on the programming of Lords amendments? There will be no Programming Committee to deal with Lords amendments, for which the mechanism will be exactly the same as the old guillotine. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that that must be the interpretation at which one arrives after a detailed reading of the motions' texts?

Mark Fisher: I share the hon. Gentleman's worries in that regard, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will clarify how Lords amendments will be handled. What is the point in having a second Chamber if we cannot consider the amendments that it sends to us?
	However, the crucial question is whether the programme motions will improve scrutiny of legislation and Government business. I do not think that they will. There is nothing wrong with greater orderliness, but we are not getting right the balance between the responsibility of hon. Members of all parties to scrutinise legislation and the Government's absolute right to introduce the legislation that they want and to have it introduced according to the proper cycle.
	I do not believe that the Government's right not to have their legislation obstructed means that the same legislation cannot be amended, but there is always a tension between those two possibilities. I do not think that the motions before us today improve the balance. I hope that we will return to these matters during this Parliament, as they lie at the heart of why hon. Members are here, and of what we do here.

Paul Tyler: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), whose contribution lasted only 18 minutes yet was more thoughtful and provoked more sensible exchanges than what went before. I am grateful to him.
	However, I draw the House's attention to the Modernisation Committee's first report of the 1997-98 Session. It contains an excellent chart that shows how the scrutiny of legislation can, under the existing Standing Orders, be undertaken in a number of different ways. If those options were taken up, there is no doubt that the legislation emerging from the House would be improved. The report contains some other suggestions for enhancing those different options.
	The House faces some very important matters. The motions before us do not offer a panacea. The proposals do not amount to a magic wand that will do everything necessary to improve the way in which the House does its job. However, in a modest way and with good will, which has already been mentioned, they can make improvements.
	Let us consider the context of the proposals and much of the discussion in the Chamber since the general election. The hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) said earlier that the fall in turnout should worry every Member of Parliament. I read an excellent Library briefing on turnout, and discovered that, when I was first elected in February 1974, the national turnout was 78.8 per cent. In my constituency, which was then called Bodmin, it was 83.3 per cent. This year, the national figure has dropped to 59.4 per cent., and even in the great constituency of North Cornwall, where we take politics seriously, it was down to 63.8 per cent. That is a 20 per cent. difference in a relatively short political lifetime. If the trend continues, it will be disastrous. In that context, this afternoon's debate is very important.
	How do we rediscover Parliament's ability to demonstrate to the nation that it is the place where we conduct our business in an orderly manner? Scrutiny of Executive action is as important as that of legislation. In that respect, the Modernisation Committee's proposals have been successfully realised in Westminster Hall. A Minister has to attend proceedings and explain a specific part of the appropriate Department's responsibility. That is an important demonstration to the country of the way in which we do our job properly. The media have not picked that up, but that is another story for another occasion.

Douglas Hogg: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we are held in such low esteem partly because individual Members are not seen to be expressing their views, and are perceived as creatures of a party? That, perhaps more than any other factor, has done most to lower the House's standing.

Paul Tyler: I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He may recall that I once proposed a motion, which stated that the power of the party had increased, was increasing and should be diminished. It reflected the famous Dunning motion of the 1780s. However, I recall that the right hon. and learned Gentleman went into the opposing Lobby. All sinners repent eventually.
	All parties have an important job to do in demonstrating that we approach the business of Parliament freely. That business has three purposes, and comprises scrutinising legislation, scrutinising Executive activity and representing our constituents. All three aspects are important. We are dealing with only one this afternoon, and I must not be diverted into considering the others.

Martin Salter: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that hon. Members who can scarcely be described as lickspittles have been present throughout the debate? They have occasionally expressed their views in defiance of their party. However, many choose not to do so at 2 am. What is wrong with that?

Paul Tyler: I shall deal with that point later. The debate is the first opportunity for me to declare that I am no longer a member of the usual channels; I am no longer my party's Chief Whip. Our new Chief Whip has decreed that we have a free vote this afternoon. I am expressing my personal view as Liberal Democrat shadow Leader of the House, but I hope that my colleagues will follow my good example.
	The new Leader of the House has had rave reviews in the media because it is clearly anticipated that he will be the House's man. I welcome that. However, I hope that the first, limited step that we are discussing will not also be the final step towards improving the conduct of the House's business. As other hon. Members have said, we look to the Leader of the House genuinely to lead us in trying to re-establish parliamentary control, not least over scrutiny and holding Ministers to account.
	The Modernisation Committee, on which I was proud to serve, has produced several reports that are relevant to the motion. It is important to say up front that there is a genuine difference between quantity and quality. The quality of our work is not measured by the quantity of time that we spend on it. We must try to identify ways of improving the product without simply extending the hours. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central said, use of time is only one weapon. The weapons of effective argument and effective use of time should be our major consideration.
	I plead with hon. Members who participate in the debate to read what must be the shortest report from any Select Committee. The report that the Modernisation Committee produced earlier this year is only one page, but it appears that not all hon. Members have read it. Again, I put it on record that the report's parentage is cross party, whatever the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) says. She may want to airbrush Sir Peter Emery, her former parliamentary neighbour, out of history, but he wrote the draft report. Neither the former Leader of the House nor I but Sir Peter Emery wrote it, and it was then discussed in the Committee.
	I am sorry that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who voted for the report, is not present. I am also disappointed that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) is absent because he took an active and positive role in the earlier stages of the Modernisation Committee. None of those hon. Members complained about its chairmanship or said that the Leader of the House should not have chaired it. That spurious argument arrived on the scene with the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton at a late stage in the proceedings.

Angela Browning: The hon. Gentleman mentioned my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young). I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not omit to mention that my right hon. Friend prepared a minority report on the Modernisation Committee's previous report, which originally introduced programming and deferred Divisions.

Paul Tyler: That is true. However, it is also true that, in the report that we are currently considering, which has given rise to the motions--their details are the responsibility of the Leader of the House; they are nothing to do with the Committee or me--we took up the right hon. Gentleman's point. It states that the terms of trade between the Government and the Opposition need to be re-evaluated.
	The Government of the day have an opportunity, a responsibility and a right to introduce legislation. If they have a mandate and retain a majority in the House, they have the opportunity to do that in reasonable time. Are the Conservative Opposition saying that the electoral system has gone wrong, and that because only some 40 per cent. of voters supported the new Government with their large majority, their legislative opportunities should be circumscribed? Are they saying that the fact that less than a quarter of the electorate voted for the Government means that they should be more humble? If so, that is new, and if they want to support us in introducing a fair voting system, we welcome all allies, even at this stage.
	Let us assume for the moment that all hon. Members agree that a Government elected under our democratic, parliamentary system are entitled to introduce legislation while they command a majority in the House. The report also said that, within the time allocated for the legislation, it should be up to Opposition parties to make the running. They and Government Back-Bench Members should stipulate the priorities for consideration and votes. That will not happen if we revert to the blunt instrument of a guillotine, if that is not a contradiction. If there is a guillotine, the Government organise their business to prevent the Opposition and dissenting voices on the Government side from having their say and getting their vote.
	The Transport Bill was a classic example. We had a programme motion, but, by agreement between the three main parties, and the full involvement of Government Back-Bench Members, we enabled the people who had genuine anxieties about the privatisation of National Air Traffic Services to have their say and their vote. If there had been a guillotine, the Government would have made sure that that did not occur. We therefore believe that, on an experimental basis--we always work on that basis--programme motions are more helpful to the conduct of good business in the House than guillotine motions. I know that in the past the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton has voted for a great many guillotine motions. She might be embarrassed by that. So far as I can recall, I have never voted for a guillotine motion, and neither have most of my colleagues. That is because we think that they just do not work. We vote for programme motions.
	The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) is not here at the moment, but he made a rather misleading statement earlier about the Liberal Democrats which I must correct. We have voted against programme motions when they have immediately followed a Second Reading debate, because we felt that that was not the right context in which to discuss the matter. The right context in which to discuss the way in which business is to be handled is a debate in Committee involving the people who are going to handle that business.
	That is why the Select Committee proposals said, "Take it away from the Floor of the House, because it will not be discussed by the people who will then be responsible for the way in which the Bill is considered. Take it into Committee." In Committee, those who are going participate in the discussion will have an input into the way in which the programme is designed, and the Chairman of the Standing Committee will seek to ensure fair play and that a balance is maintained between the different interests, including those of the Back Benchers--an important point made earlier by the hon. Member for Macclesfield.

Douglas Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is making a perfectly sensible suggestion, but it would be even more sensible if we could devise a way of ensuring that the membership of the Standing Committee--which, under the hon. Gentleman's scheme, would be devising the timetable--were not so controlled by those on the Front Benches. The danger is that the Standing Committee will contain people who are broadly speaking, the creatures of those on the Front Benches.

Paul Tyler: I very much agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It is extremely important that those who have experience on the Front Benches get on to the Back Benches as fast as possible. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's redemption since he left the Government Front Bench is remarkable. I do not recall him raising these points at any stage when his Government were packing Committees on Bills and Select Committees in the 1992 to 1997 Parliament. However, he makes a perfectly valid point, which I endorse. Although it is not appropriate for this debate, the process by which people are put on to Committees--be they scrutiny Committees for Bills or other Committees--is an important issue to which I know the Leader of the House will want to return on a different occasion.

John Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman accept, on the strength of the operation thus far of Programming Sub-Committees, that one of their enduring problems is that they seem to suffer from an identity crisis? They are what might politely--or less politely--be described as political cross-dressers or transvestites. On the one hand it is mooted that they are really a variation on the theme of a Standing Committee. If that is the case, why is there no verbatim transcript of the proceedings? Alternatively, it is suggested that they are Select Committees. In that case, what on earth is the business of the Government Whip in sitting on them?

Paul Tyler: I bow to the hon. Gentleman's superior judgment. He obviously has direct experience of political cross-dressers whereas I have never encountered one, so I cannot speak on that with authority. However, he makes a serious point, which I take. I am sure that the Leader of the House and his deputy are listening carefully. There is mixed experience--let us put it no more strongly than that--of the operation of the Programming Sub-Committees. Some of my colleagues came back saying that they had worked remarkably well; some said that they had been led well by the Chair of the Committee; and some came back and said that, frankly, it was all sewn up in advance.
	I say with great care as I look round the House, and now that I am no longer part of the usual channels, that I am amazed by the contributions of some previous members of the Government Whips Office--I am not looking at anyone in particular--earlier this afternoon. My experience of carve-ups between those on the two Front Benches was that they deliberately excluded the third party, and other minor parties, in the House, and often also excluded very carefully any consideration of the views of Government Back Benchers. That was true under successive Governments. If, by means of the proposals, programme motions will enable a less formal but more open dialogue to take place with those on the Back Benches in the Committees, that must be good for Parliament. I hope that that would restore some of the reputation to which other hon. Members have referred.
	I am a great believer in evolution in this place. Having been in and out of it for some time, I am conscious that people outside think that we are far too staid in the way in which we conduct our business. They think that we get stuck in a rut and that we do not know what is going on in the world outside. The proposals that the Leader of the House has put before us represent a modest step, based on the solid support of a broad cross-section of members--not everyone; I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton--in the Modernisation Committee. The principle is right that those who are going to do the detailed scrutiny are the best people to decide how that scrutiny should be punctuated.

Dominic Grieve: I return to the point that I made earlier on Lords amendments, and I would be grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments on that. Nobody will determine the programming in that regard apart from the Leader of the House or the Minister in charge of the Bill in question. Does not that fly in the face of the intention that the hon. Gentleman says the Modernisation Committee had in coming up with these proposals?

Paul Tyler: It is perfectly true that I do not recall a detailed discussion about Lords amendments. I shall look to the Minister to respond to that question when he replies. That is a perfectly fair point.
	The choice before the House is this: do we want to revert to a situation in which an imposed guillotine is going to be used after appropriate amounts of waffle and hours of filibustering? It would not technically be filibustering, but we all know a near-filibuster when we see one. Is that the right way forward for the House? Alternatively, are we prepared, on some Bills at least--not on all of them; the Leader of the House has already given that assurance--to try to seek agreement in the Committee on the best way to programme the debate? I think that that is the better route.
	I am extremely disappointed that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills is not still here. Having said how important this debate was, it is disappointing that he has not stayed for it. Yet even he abstained on guillotine motions. I have here the proceedings of the Finance Bill from February 1994. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton voted for the guillotine on that occasion, but even the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, who makes such a fetish of saying that we must never be forced to do anything we do not want to do, recognised that there was some merit in trying to make progress with the business of the House. It is better to have agreement across the Floor, and to have Back-Bench contributions, than to have everlasting guillotines.
	I confess that I cannot get wildly excited either way on the subject of deferred Divisions, and I do not believe that the great British public can either. However, it is nonsense to say that this is breaking some terrible precedent or some great tradition. After all, we sometimes have a two-day debate on the remaining stages of a Bill or a delayed vote because amendments are grouped together. That can happen all too often.
	However, what I really object to is the humbug of suggesting that 659 Members--or however many are permitted to vote--sit here throughout every debate and listen to every argument before they come to a conclusion. That day has long since gone, if it ever existed. Looking round the House now, I do not know how many Members are going to vote at 6.30 pm, but no one could say that they have all been sitting here listening to my words of wisdom and therefore know precisely what the issues are all about--and that that is why it is so critical that we have to ensure that they are all here. I am sorry to pick on the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, but he made this point very strongly on an earlier occasion. He is not here to listen to my arguments, so how can I persuade him? I fear he may go into the Opposition Lobby as well.
	The proposals are not breaking precedents and I regard that as a dubious argument. They represent only a tiny step, and I hope that it is in the right direction.
	I also hope that the House will be prepared at least to experiment, because that will mean that we can demonstrate to the world at large that we are taking our business more seriously. We are seeking to work in a more businesslike way and perhaps, in a small way, we might be able to reverse that disastrous turnout to which I referred earlier.

Anne Campbell: I welcome the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office to the Front Bench. I believe that this is his first debate. He has considerable expertise on constitutional issues and I am sure that he will be a valuable addition to our Front-Bench team.
	I have to start by being slightly critical of the Modernisation Committee's report. I would have liked to see the kind of analysis of programme motions to which hon. Members referred earlier. Analysis of the arguments made in programme motion debates would have been valuable because it would have shown that no new arguments were made after the debate on the first such motion.
	Every programme motion debate that I heard was remarkably similar. On several occasions, I made a point of coming to the Chamber to listen after 10 pm, and when I did not come to the Chamber, I often listened to the monitor in my room. The debates were remarkably unoriginal in content, so I am sorry that the Modernisation Committee did not think that it could undertake an analysis. I did the next best thing. I could not undertake one myself, but I thought that reading the contributions of individual Members would be worth while.
	A nice search facility is offered by Hansard online, so I typed in the name of a Member and the words that I was looking for. Instantly, and with little work, I found the number of references by a Member to a particular subject. I typed in "programme motion" and "Forth". I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is not in his place, as the total was 4,353. When I typed in "Hogg" and "programme motion", the total was 3,558, while "Bercow" gave a total of 3,401.
	I was expecting to be asked how many references I had made. I typed in "Campbell" and must confess that the total was 5,833. However, I should point out that four other Members of the previous Parliament shared my name. I am afraid that Hansard online is not sufficiently discriminating to distinguish between Anne Campbell, Ronnie Campbell, Menzies Campbell and so on. My point is that programme motion debates were the sole preserve of a few Members who made the same points over and over and over again.

Douglas Hogg: The hon. Lady is right that we were repetitious, but the problem is that once one accepts the precedent, it is difficult to protest. She is therefore correct that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and I took advantage of every debate to protest about what was going on so as not to let go and allow a precedent to be established for a procedure that we thought profoundly wrong.

Anne Campbell: I admire the right hon. and learned Gentleman's persistence. However, there comes a point in all democratic debate when one has to admit that the argument is lost. This is one such occasion. The point was made several times and the right hon. Gentleman lost in democratic votes, for good reasons.
	I remind the House of the situation that persisted before the introduction of the programming and deferred votes experiment. Bills that were thought to be uncontentious sailed through Second Reading and Committee only to be subjected to the tabling of huge numbers of amendments on Report and Third Reading. Those amendments often lacked substance, and were frequently trivial and obviously time-wasting, although they were, of course, in order. Many Opposition Members made essentially the same point.

Gerald Howarth: Does not the hon. Lady detect in her tone some arrogance in her treatment of the House? She dismisses the opposition afforded from this side of the Chamber, but I put it to her that when she finds herself on these Benches, as she will one day, we shall throw those arguments back at her.

Anne Campbell: I have had the benefit of experience of the Opposition Benches, and I did not like it. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not like it either. It is uncomfortable to feel that one is continually losing the argument, and I remember my delight when we won a vote in opposition. That was a remarkable feeling, although it becomes commonplace in government.
	I do not believe that I am being arrogant, as many amendments were tabled for one purpose and one purpose only: to waste the House's time and to keep Labour Members up until all hours of the day and night. We were frequently subjected to sitting until 2 or 3 am. Next day, Ministers and Members together felt deprived of sleep for no good purpose, as the debates changed nothing. After hours and hours of discussion, the Government did the obvious and imposed a guillotine, which was equally futile.
	If Conservative Members think that the public admire or approve of such actions, I am afraid they are sadly mistaken. The general public do not approve; they think that we are all mad to sit here until 2 am or 3 am discussing arcane points about a comma in the middle of a clause. That is not a sensible way to use the time of busy people who have serious work to do, and it is one reason why many of the public, who are so disenchanted with the whole process, decided not to turn out to vote at the general election. The public find such activity totally abhorrent.

Gerald Howarth: There were infinitely more all-night sittings when I was elected to the House in 1983--night after night after night. My noble Friend Baroness Thatcher never complained, unlike the Prime Minister, who treats the House with complete contempt and comes here only once a week. My noble Friend would come to the House at 4.30 am completely unfazed, hair impeccably in place and handbag at the ready. She gave inspirational leadership to us all and never made any complaint.
	I accept that there is no sense in time wasting and keeping Members up indefinitely for no good purpose, but I remind the hon. Lady that, when we were in government, there were no complaints from Ministers at the antics of the present Leader of the House and his colleagues.

Anne Campbell: The fact that the House sat later more frequently is no reason to say that it was better. When I sat on the Opposition Benches, I was aware that such activities were perpetrated by my party, although I never participated. I never even thought about whether I approved, although now that I sit on these Benches, I know that I definitely disapprove and that I would not like them to be pursued, even if I finish up on the Opposition Benches again.

Joan Ruddock: Can my hon. Friend clarify a point on which I hope she agrees with me? Those of us who are modernisers and who have campaigned for these changes are not trying to work fewer hours. We are trying to achieve circumstances in which we can work more effectively. We are all prepared to work horrendous hours, as we do now, but there must be a balance between the constituency, family life and our life in the House. As so many hon. Members have said, effective scrutiny can be achieved if we make changes and rearrange our hours and voting patterns.

Anne Campbell: My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. All of us, as Members of Parliament, want more effective scrutiny in this place. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) made a similar point when he said that time was not in fact a very good weapon: we need to improve the quality and succinctness of our arguments, and make our points more briefly and sharply and in a more focused way. Speeches that are to the point are much more likely to be noticed, and to engender interest outside.

Dominic Grieve: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Anne Campbell: I have given way a number of times, but I will do so once more.

Dominic Grieve: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I am sure that she speaks with great sincerity, and I accept her critique of some of our practices, but she will appreciate that--especially when measures are being introduced by a Government after a period during which that Government used the very tactics that she now deplores--the Opposition are bound to greet such measures with a certain suspicion. That is all the more inevitable given that on all the real measures that could be taken to modernise procedure in the House, we have heard nothing from the Leader of the House. The Conservative party has contributed by publishing a major document with proposals on the subject.

Anne Campbell: I am surprised that it has taken so long for an Opposition Member to refer to Lord Norton's report on modernisation, which was a welcome contribution to the debate. I am trying to set up an all-party modernisation group. I hope that Opposition Members will feel able to participate, and will use the opportunity to put Lord Norton's views to the group more cogently so that we can have a sensible discussion.
	Debates could be much briefer and less repetitive than they are now. I am reminded of the famous writer--I think that it was Oscar Wilde, but I may be wrong--who said, "I am writing a long letter, as I do not have time to write a short one." That is the problem: because we do not prepare very well, we often have to go the long way round to say things that we could have said much more succinctly.

Paul Tyler: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Anne Campbell: I want to make some progress.

Paul Tyler: A very small correction.

Anne Campbell: If it is a correction, I will give way.

Paul Tyler: In fact, the quotation comes from Dr. Johnson rather than Oscar Wilde. That may appeal rather more to the Conservative ranks.

Anne Campbell: I thank the hon. Gentleman.
	I also feel that debates held at a more reasonable time of day would attract more press interest. We have often engaged in debates at midnight or in the early hours of the morning, and it is unreasonable to expect any member of the press to be up at that time of night listening to what we say. I do not think that debates held after 10 pm are the most widely watched or noted.
	I ask myself whether the general public admire parliamentarians who stay up late night after night, and I have to conclude that they do not: they just think we are stupid to allow it to happen. Time and again, when I have raised the issue in the national media, constituents have asked me, "Why do you put up with it? We find it incredible that you are expected to be there night after night, for no good purpose."
	It is important that we allow adequate time for debate. I do not approve of the practice of pushing clauses and Bills through this place when they have not been debated or scrutinised. But adequate time does not mean unlimited time because unlimited time has shown itself to invite abuse of the system.
	Opposition Members mentioned the role of Members of Parliament. We must continually and carefully rethink that role. I regard myself as a representative of my constituency, and I think it important for me, in that role, to listen closely to what my constituents say to me. I read their letters and e-mails, talk to them whenever I can, and engage in dialogue, and I am frequently influenced by their remarks. I come back here, mention my experiences in debates, talk to Ministers and if I am persuaded myself, try to persuade other people.
	It is important to the whole process of democracy for us all to give ourselves opportunities to be influenced by what constituents say. The problem is that some of us have the impression that a parliamentarian has a fixed set of ideas, comes here to express his or her views, and never undergoes any process of renewal--never goes back to listen to what the outside world is saying.
	Elections are a good time at which to bring home the views of constituents. Many of us knock on doors in our constituencies during election campaigns, and at the end of the recent campaign I felt that I had a good idea of my constituents' concerns. That is an important process in which we should engage as often as we can, and that means having time to engage in it. If we are in this place all the time, the balance is wrong.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a day when it has been announced that the House will probably rise on 19 July, does it not behove us be careful about saying that we do not have enough time to talk to our constituents?

Anne Campbell: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that 19 July is early. In recent years, the House has sat until the end of July. The early finish may be due to a number of factors, but it is certainly not due to the fact that the Executive want to give us time to go back to our constituencies. Listening to constituents, however, is an important part of our role.

Martin Salter: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Anne Campbell: I am about to finish. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to make his own speech.
	I hope that the House will vote for the proposals. I believe that both the quality of our lives and the quality of debate will be improved if we accept that programming will become a permanent feature of our procedures.

Douglas Hogg: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), who made some remarks with which I agreed. Let me say this to the House more generally: I hope that Ministers will gather from the debate that there is a lot of genuine anxiety on both sides of the House about the way in which we conduct business.
	The hon. Lady said that we had returned from the election with a clearer view of what the electorate felt about a number of issues. One message that I received--as, I think, did other Members--concerned the extent to which the House of Commons, politicians and politics are held in low regard. There are many reasons for that, and I do not think it necessary to catalogue them now; but for many years I have been aware of a recognition that the House has become the instrument of the Executive, and we as Members of Parliament have become the creatures of party. As a result, members of the public observing our deliberations say of Members that they are but expressing the party view.
	I want to impress on hon. Members my profoundly held conviction--which, I should point out to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), I held when I was on the Government Benches and serving in a Government office--that Members of Parliament should be much more independent. It is very nice to see my deputy Chief Whip on the Front Bench, because he knows my views as he has heard me express them many times. I took the precaution of including in my election address my belief that it is desirable for Members of Parliament to be as independent as possible. I wanted my constituents to know that when I come to the House it is my intention to be as independent as I feel is right.
	I do not believe in the whipping system, and I do not like to be told that I have a free vote only on matters of conscience. I regard all votes as free. Clearly, there is a presumption that we vote in favour of our party, and we are obviously not experts on many issues. This has nothing to do with conscience. When individual Members of Parliament form an opinion, it behoves them to express that opinion and to vote according to it when desirable.

William Cash: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on that statement and on his election address. I made a similar point in my election address for exactly the same reason. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the greatest objective and justifiable change that any great party could make would be to have a policy of ensuring the independence of Parliament as well as the independence of Back Benchers?

Douglas Hogg: I agree with my hon. Friend. Modernisation is important, and there are things that we can do about our practices to make ourselves more efficient. To re-establish independence on both Benches is by far the most important thing that we can do. If we were to do that, and to speak our minds and vote accordingly, we would be held in much greater esteem, and the decisions of the House would have much greater authority.

Paul Tyler: I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I told my electorate that I would agree with everything that my Chief Whip told me, but then I was the Chief Whip.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman's point is particularly valid for Select Committees and Committee work, but it is more difficult to be independent in the discussions that take place on the Floor of the House. The fact that the centre of gravity has moved from the Chamber to the Committees--which some people regard as a retrograde step--may be an advantage in the context of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument.

Douglas Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is right in part, but I would like to see as much independence as possible everywhere. It is obviously easier to be independent in the Committees, because hon. Members have access to much more information on the specific measures that they are discussing. I want hon. Members to be, broadly speaking, independent, and to form their own views on the basis of the evidence presented to them.
	Incidentally, I would change the oath that we all take when we come to the House, not because I am an anti-monarchist--I am not--but because I want hon. Members to take an oath that they will vote in accordance with their judgment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is now straying rather wide of the mark.

Douglas Hogg: Only to this extent, Mr. Deputy Speaker--I may be able to persuade you of a slightly different view. If hon. Members swore that they would vote in accordance with their judgment, they would be in a much better position to say to the Whips, "Oh, no, my friend. I have sworn an oath, to which I intend to adhere." That would erect a different obligation, which one could set against the obligation of party. However, I do not want to test your patience further, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	I am against the deferred Division procedure, and I have not the slightest intention of participating in any of the votes in the No Lobby for the remainder of this Parliament. We are allowing important decisions to be made by hon. Members signing a visitors' book, which they may sign as many as five or six days after the debate. I willingly concede that hon. Members frequently vote on matters without having heard the debate and without having been present at any material time, but the deferred Division procedure gives a legislative or parliamentary sanction to that process. I regard that as profoundly unsatisfactory. Although I did not entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) when she talked about third-party influence, the truth is that when hon. Members vote on a piece of paper six or seven days after the event they are much more prone to pressures from their Whips than they would be if they were present for the debate.
	If hon. Members have to vote at the end of the business under discussion, there is a reasonable chance that they will listen to some part of the debate. They may identify some anxieties or problems that they wish to communicate to their Front-Bench colleagues or to the House, but the deferred voting procedure makes that impossible.
	By using delegated legislation, Governments can make substantial changes to the law. If they must have hon. Members present--often late at night--to approve those changes, that is a check on the volume of legislation that they can handle in that way. The hon. Member for Cambridge understandably does not want to be here late night after night, and she would say to her Whips, "Look, my friends, this is intolerable." If enough of her hon. Friends said to their Whips, "This is intolerable", the volume of legislation passed in that way would not be as great as it would be if the Government could get it through by getting the visitors' book signed. There is no merit in the visitors' book, so I do not intend to sign it throughout the lifetime of this Parliament.
	I am profoundly uneasy about programme motions. We need to consider the detail of the proposal for the programme motion, which has two substantive parts: paragraph A and paragraphs B and C. The key detail of paragraph A is that the motion is tabled before Second Reading and is to be voted on immediately after the conclusion of the Second Reading debate. It will be voted on, not debated, after Second Reading. Save for three limited exceptions, the programme motion will be taken forthwith.
	The detail of the programme motion will be formulated before the Second Reading debate, which is before right hon. and hon. Members have had a chance to express their views on the merits of the Bill, or even those parts of the Bill that are deemed to be material. That is a travesty, because the Executive are determining the timetable without having listened to the views of hon. Members. We are precluded from saying that the timetable is inappropriate, because we cannot debate the timetable motion: it is to be voted on immediately after the Second Reading debate. That is a travesty of democracy.
	Paragraphs B and C relate to the composition of the Programming Committee and Sub-Committee. The House will know that the Programming Committee comprises eight Members to be selected by the Speaker, with a quorum of four. The truth, as we know well, is that the members of the Committee and the Sub-Committee will be selected largely by the Whips. They will draw up the timetable that they wish to see. They will probably not consult the awkward squad on either side. Indeed, the awkward squad's interests will be disregarded. I do not suppose that the interests of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) or of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) will be taken into account because the Front Bench will not want that to happen.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) said, the process also takes place in secret. There is no record of what happens in the Programming Committee. We do not know what pressures were brought to bear, who said what or how people voted. The process is put together by the Front Benches, whose interests are not mine nor are they those of my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), who is now a Back Bencher and whose interests should be with us. We have a legitimate interest in preserving the rights and powers of Parliament.

Richard Shepherd: The rights and powers of the people.

Douglas Hogg: Indeed, my hon. Friend is right.
	When we consider legislation, leaving aside the benefits and rights that flow from it, we are considering penalties and obligations. Legislation imposes burdens on the electorate, sometimes penal in character. In a democratic society, we all make an implied bargain to the effect that legislation will be properly scrutinised by the representatives of the people. There is an implied bargain between members of a political community that legislation will not be imposed unless those representatives have had a chance to scrutinise it and express their views. The process that I have described, and which the Government are pursuing, is calculated to break down that bargain.
	Inevitably, large chunks of legislation, some of it quite serious, will go through--some went through in the previous Parliament--without it having been discussed. When people begin to realise that their obligations are arising not as a result of scrutiny but as a result of fiat, directive and Executive action, they will come to realise that the days of the elected dictatorship have truly arrived. I am not trying to say that we are a dictatorship yet because I do not believe that that is true, but we are putting in place procedures that enable the Executive to ride roughshod over the liberties and freedoms of the people of this country and to ignore the considered opinions of their representatives. That is not just bad in the short term, but will undermine the foundations of democracy. I fear for the future.

Ann McKechin: It is a great honour to make my maiden speech as the representative of the electorate of Glasgow, Maryhill. Although I was selected as a Labour candidate only in March this year, I received a warm welcome from the community. I heartily support my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in the motions before us. Tradition has an important part to play in our institutions, but it should not act as a barrier to progress.
	I pay tribute to my predecessor, Maria Fyfe, who served the constituency diligently and with great skill over the past 14 years. Since arriving here, I have met many hon. Members who held her in high regard, and that sentiment was expressed to me by many of my constituents during my election campaign. She is an excellent example to follow. She was an independent and strong Back Bencher and I am sure that all hon. Members join me in wishing her well in her future endeavours. I feel privileged to stand here today as her successor and as part of a long line of Labour Members for Maryhill and, uniquely for Glasgow, as its second female Member of Parliament.
	My constituency has yet again resoundingly shown its support for the Government with a 60 per cent. share of the vote and a majority almost double that achieved in the 1999 Scottish Parliament elections. Glasgow's citizens know that the Government are working for them on jobs, pensions or public services. When my predecessor was first elected, unemployment in Maryhill was growing at an alarming rate and was matched with chronic under-investment in public services and housing stock. The consequent dire effects on the local community were all too evident.
	I am happy to say that the policies of the present Government, based firmly on the principle of social justice, have already had significant effect. In the past four years, long-term unemployment in Maryhill has been reduced by a massive 65 per cent. and the general unemployment figure has been lowered by almost 40 per cent.
	However, there is still much to be done to lift our constituency from the poverty trap, and I urge the Government to continue their good work with a resolute commitment to full employment and continued increases in our public spending. Too much talent and life has been squandered in the last quarter of a century. We have a heavy responsibility to our constituents, who have placed their trust in us year after year, to deliver them a country where opportunity for all is not just a meaningless phrase but a reality.
	Maryhill has a strong record of community activism. That was particularly evident during my election campaign when the Forth and Clyde canal, part of which runs through the area, was formally reopened as part of the millennium project. Water has always been seen as a symbol of life, and that project encompasses many hopes and aspirations in the constituency for a better life in the coming years. Although Maryhill might not appear to be a tourist attraction, it may surprise hon. Members to know that it includes a bird sanctuary, the site of a Roman fort adjoining the Antonine wall, the Queen's Cross church designed by Charles Rennie Mackintosh and the largest number of farms in any Glasgow constituency.
	Maryhill is also home to Glasgow's best-loved football team--Partick Thistle, of course--which this year not only celebrated its 125th anniversary but succeeded in winning promotion to the first division. I am sure that this will be only the beginning of more triumphs for the club and I look forward to watching my first ever football match at its ground. Although I have not watched a match before, my active membership of the Labour party in the west of Scotland over the past decade has proved to be an invaluable source of information and advice.
	There has rightly been great concern in the House about the low turnout at this and other recent elections. I urge hon. Members from all parts of the House to give serious and mature consideration to that issue in the weeks and months ahead. It is clear that a growing percentage of our electorate feel no link between themselves and their elected representatives. It is beholden on us to commit ourselves to reform and modernisation, where necessary, while retaining the highest standards of conduct. In particular, I welcome the Government's proposed legislation to allow political parties to achieve better gender balance as an important step in that process.
	It is vital, however, that all sections of our society, including the media, play their part in establishing the principle that our Government are the servant of their citizens and that, in turn, all citizens have a duty to maintain our elected democracy. That sense of shared responsibility has, for multiple reasons, broken down in recent years. Unfortunately, spin and sleaze are not new phenomena in world history; they have been with us since the days of Machiavelli, if not before. But the right of ordinary citizens freely to elect their Governments is still a relatively recent concept, and one that has involved much struggle and sacrifice. Many people throughout this globe are still facing death and oppression and are fighting for rights that we take for granted at our peril. We must move away from the pre-eminence of individualism in our society, to create a society where the principle of caring for, and working with, our fellow citizens has priority.
	It is not just within the confines of our own boundaries that threats to democracy exist. Elected Governments will face enormous challenges in the coming years, as we experience the effects of continued globalisation and changing relationships with international organisations. The economic and political strength of transnational corporations has been well documented, but as yet the imbalance of power that they hold has still to be harnessed and regulated for the proper benefit of all people on the planet. If we are to avoid a return to a modern-day version of feudalism, democracies will need to unite to ensure that the interests of their citizens instead of the level of dividends paid to shareholders are made paramount.
	I very much welcome the widespread reforms that were recently put in place by the Department for International Development, and its new priority on the reduction of world poverty. As someone who has long campaigned for the end of the link between trade and aid, I congratulate the Government on their proposed reforms of the aid system. The Government have established themselves as a world leader in the fight against the scourge of world poverty, but much still needs to be done, and I urge them to renew their efforts on debt reduction at the forthcoming Genoa summit, and to argue vigorously for reform of our international organisations to ensure that poverty reduction is truly integral to their decision-making processes.
	Reform should be embraced, not feared. Let us tackle our challenges, be they at home or abroad, with renewed vigour and confidence to ensure that we have a democracy that is fit for this century.

Patrick Cormack: It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) and to congratulate her on her maiden speech, which was delivered with assurance and fluency and which was very much in the tradition of the non-controversial maiden speech while nevertheless making some extremely punchy and proper points. I am sure that the House will look forward to hearing from her again, although she is likely to get the odd intervention in future, as she probably knows.
	The hon. Lady spoke warmly of her predecessor, Maria Fyfe. We all remember Maria with considerable affection as a very individualistic parliamentarian. She was a real parliamentarian--she was frequently here and often intervened in debates. She was most certainly not a lackey of any Government--she spoke her mind, with confidence and authority. Her accent was slightly more Glaswegian than the hon. Lady's, so we did not always get every nuance. I am sure that we shall from the hon. Lady. Maria was a dear woman and an excellent Member of Parliament and we shall miss her. I am sure that we have a splendid replacement in the hon. Lady and I wish her many happy years here--with 60 per cent. of the poll it is going to take us more than a couple of elections to remove her. She will enjoy being here, I am sure.
	The hon. Lady was right to interpret the rules governing maiden speeches by ranging widely, and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were right to let her do so. What is pertinent to this debate, however, is the fact that the hon. Lady was speaking as the Member of the Westminster Parliament--the United Kingdom Parliament--for Glasgow, Maryhill. In debates such as these, we all have to remember the words of the late Duncan Sandys who, when upbraided for not attending his constituency--not that it was difficult because it was only in Streatham, just down the road--said that he was the Member for Streatham in Westminster, not the Member for Westminster in Streatham.
	We have to pay due regard to our constituencies and our constituents and the hon. Lady will almost certainly do so. I am sure that she will report back regularly, as we all do in our different ways.
	I was saddened by the speech of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) and I am sorry that she is not still in her place. She seemed to imply that we were here too much and in our constituencies too little. She was rightly interrupted by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who reminded her that we have not only weekends but parliamentary recesses. That is when we do the bulk of our constituency work. Our prime duty is to be here when the House is in Session. I have always refused mid-week engagements in my constituency. I have returned there mid-week only for funerals, not for ordinary constituency engagements. It is my duty to be here.
	One thing that has saddened me in the past few years, and which is relevant to this debate--it is not only the fault of this Government--has been the way in which the parliamentary week has been squeezed. There was a time when Thursday was one of the great parliamentary days. Until four years ago, we had Prime Minister's Question Time every Thursday as well as business questions. The House sat until 10 pm, when it nearly always voted. Thursday was an important parliamentary day.
	An indicator of the way in which Thursday has ceased to be a great parliamentary day is the fact that even the Conservative party's 1922 committee now meets on Wednesdays, not Thursdays, because insufficient Members are here on that day. I do not suggest that all the blame is on one side of the House. The rot set in with Jopling. Many of us were too easily seduced by some of the Jopling proposals.
	I will never forget a wonderful speech by the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), who told the House as he bared his soul a couple of years ago, how he had delayed the implementation of the Jopling proposals, which was very much in his gift as Opposition Chief Whip. He and the redoubtable Don Dixon delayed the proposals until they knew that they would be in government in a short time. They knew that the proposals would serve the Executive and the interests of government, and the right hon. Gentleman said so honestly in the House.
	Of course, hon. Members can bare their souls and say all sorts of interesting things in debates such as this. I am bound to say that I savoured enormously the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). His was a wonderful bravura performance of the kind that we have come to expect of him on every occasion. I could not help but remember the days when he was a Government Whip instructing the 1922 committee on how we must vote--and if we deviated, by jove we would be in trouble.
	I can also remember when, as a most distinguished Minister, my right hon. and learned Friend was not likely to brook deviation or any challenge--but of course, now that he is liberated on the Back Benches and in opposition, he is one of the foremost champions of parliamentary liberty. He has already said this afternoon that he will not cast his vote in a single deferred Division for the next four or five years, which will doubtless ensure that he can do one or two other things on Wednesdays.
	This is a very serious debate, and I am bound to say that I welcome the tone of the speech made by the Leader of the House. I do not want to sound patronising, but the right hon. Gentleman has it within him to be a very considerable Leader of the House. When he was first elected, he immediately made his mark as someone who fitted in here and who relished the cut and thrust of parliamentary debate. He was a consummate debater, and some of the classic debates in the House in my time featured the right hon. Gentleman. He gave no quarter, but he was always punctilious, courteous and hard hitting, and I have missed him during the past four years. I make no criticism; of course, he had his particular brief and he did not attend debates very frequently because he was on Her Majesty's Government's business in other parts of the world.
	The right hon. Gentleman could be a considerable Leader of the House, so long as he remembers that he has a dual role. Of course, he is a leading member of the Cabinet and of Her Majesty's Government, but he is also the leader and the servant of the House of Commons, and in that context, his role is second in importance only to that of Mr. Speaker or the occupant of the Chair. I hope that he will recognise that it is important that he gives back to the House more opportunities for the effective scrutiny of the Executive.
	Legislation that is not properly scrutinised is frequently very bad, and we should all remind ourselves of that. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), I have never been a friend of the guillotine. I have voted against guillotines introduced by my party because it is wrong when great swathes of important legislation go undebated and undiscussed. We reached a parliamentary nadir just a few weeks before the general election, when we debated the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 and the House connived at what I then called, and call again, a parliamentary lie--we deemed that things had been discussed that had not been discussed. That was a low point in parliamentary history, and I hope that it will never be repeated and that it will not have set a precedent. That happened as a direct consequence of programming legislation.
	I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that he will not automatically programme all Bills. It is not the subject of programming that excites Opposition Members, but the manner in which it is done, so I hope that when programming is considered, there will be a proper opportunity adequately to discuss all the clauses of the Bill under consideration. That will mean that the Government cannot programme until after Second Reading. There must be proper opportunity for extending the time that is available. To take up the point made several times by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) from the Opposition Front Bench, there must also be adequate discussion of amendments from the House of Lords. If that means that the Government have to produce less legislation for the House rather than more, so be it. That would be a good thing. If it means that the Government have to produce more draft Bills that we can crawl over before we come to debate them in their substantive form, again that will be a good thing. It is the quality, not the quantity, of legislation that matters.
	There are many proposals in the Queen's Speech on which there will not be an ideological divide between the Government and the Opposition, but there will certainly be a divide if things are rushed through without the opportunity adequately to consider and properly to debate. That also means the opportunity properly to consult with those legitimate outside interests whose fortunes will be affected by the legislation that we are passing. Far too often in the past four years, there has been inadequate time to discuss with our constituents and other interests what the Government have proposed.
	The pre-election Session was rushed and there was almost no opportunity to discuss certain legislation. The Leader of the House will have to bear all these things carefully in mind if he is to earn the reputation of which he is certainly capable; if he is to go down in history as one of the considerable Leaders of the House. I remember many Leaders of the House, and two or three stand out as absolutely first class. One thinks of Norman St. John Stevas, who was responsible for introducing the Select Committees. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge- Brownhills anticipates me by mouthing the words "John Biffen", who was a marvellous Leader of the House because he was--I do not think that I am being unfair to anyone else--the least partisan. He was semi-detached before his semi-detachment was dispatched by the lady with the handbag. I sincerely hope that if the present Leader of the House becomes semi-detached he will not be dispatched. I hope that the Prime Minister will redeem his parliamentary reputation by realising that he has put the right man in the right place and leaving him there. This is a reputation that is at the moment potential, and we all want it to become actual.
	Programming should not be entered into automatically. It is important that the Leader of the House heeds the words uttered this afternoon about the composition of Programming Committees and the way in which the time is allocated. If he does not, we may well have a repetition of events last year, and the reputation of Parliament will suffer in consequence. None of us, whether we come from Glasgow, Maryhill or from South Staffordshire, will benefit if the reputation of Parliament sinks. I want to see Parliament once more at the centre of national life, which at the moment it is not, and this Chamber at the centre of Parliament's life, which at the moment it is not.
	The Leader of the House did not deal adequately with deferred Divisions--the postal ballot a week after the debate, when there has been no requirement to do anything and plenty of opportunity to be got at by all sorts of people. Deferred Divisions are a negation of what Parliament and parliamentary voting should be all about. I hope that, at the least, the right hon. Gentleman will discuss with his colleagues on the Modernisation Committee a reorganisation of deferred Divisions. As he reminded us, we are still in the experimental stage. Divisions should at least take place the day after the debate. It might be inconvenient for hon. Members to be here at 2 o'clock the next day to cast their votes, but we are not here for our convenience. It is our role to serve our constituents and to represent them adequately and properly. If that means the inconvenience of casting a deferred vote the day after a debate--at, for example, 9 o'clock in the morning or 2 o'clock in the afternoon--so be it.
	I am no friend of long nights--I have been in the House too long for that. I remember Parliament sitting night after night in 1970 to debate the Industrial Relations Bill. There was a great spirit of camaraderie and I shall never forget the Labour Opposition bursting into song with a rendition of the Red Flag at about 4 am. Nevertheless, the quality of legislation was not enhanced and the Industrial Relations Act 1971 had possibly the shortest life of any reforming legislation in the past 50 years. I do not want us to be here just for the sake of it, but it is our role to ensure that legislation is more than adequate.
	As for the Modernisation Committee, I do not like its title and want it renamed. The "Improvement of Scrutiny Committee" would more adequately describe its proper function and role. I apologise to the Leader of the House if my intervention was a shade flippant, but he should think carefully about his role in relation to the Committee. He should consider whether it might be better for him to have someone like the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich or my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge- Brownhills as its Chairman. Its stature as a parliamentary Committee would grow immeasurably and its recommendations would carry far more weight. The right hon. Gentleman would continue to have an input; he would not be prevented from attending Committee meetings to put his point of view. However, the Leader of the House, a senior member of the Executive, should not be perceived as being in the driving seat of a body that is deciding how we will scrutinise every Government action. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reflect carefully on that over the recess.
	We are at the beginning of a new Parliament. The Conservative party did not have an especially successful election. That fell to the Labour party. Democrats must congratulate the winning party, but they must recognise, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill did in her maiden speech, the fact that we have to look to ourselves when we consider the percentage poll. Some 25 per cent. of those eligible to vote voted for the Government; 19 per cent. voted for us; and 11 per cent. voted for the Liberal Democrats. In that context, none of us has anything about which to be proud. One reason for that vote is the fact that the House has fallen in the estimation of the people. It lies within our power to enhance that reputation once again.
	It is important that hon. Members, especially new Labour Members, remember that they have a crucial role. We cannot properly and fully hold the Executive to account unless they take part in that process. Everything that we do to reform and change our procedures should be with one aim in mind--to improve that scrutiny and involve everyone in it. If the Leader of the House can set us on that road, he will deserve the thanks of us all.

Iain Luke: It is with a great sense of honour and humility that I rise to make my maiden speech in this venerable Chamber. I am proud to have been elected by the constituents of Dundee, East to represent the city of my birth and their best interests in Westminster.
	I believe that Dundee is Scotland's friendliest city. It certainly claims to be the United Kingdom's sunniest city, given its favourable location on the east coast and the shelter of the Sidlaw hills. It is one of Scotland's most densely packed urban centres, forming a regional centre for North Tayside, Angus and North-East Fife.
	Dundee is unique in Scotland, if not in the UK, in that it can boast two premier league football teams within a stone's throw of each other on the same road. As well as that, there is an even political balance in football support in the city. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) is known in Dundee as an Arab, not because of his intense and knowledgeable interest in the middle east, for which I commend him, but because of the alleged practices in which his club used to participate: putting sand on the ground to make it more difficult for more skilful teams to play football in the winter. On the other hand, I am a dyed-in-the-wool true blue Dundee supporter. I hasten to add that not many supporters of either club will be casting their votes in the ballot in September for the leader of the Conservative party. Dundee is therefore a truly united city.
	I am proud to represent a city which, over its long history--it celebrated its octocentenary in 1991--has never been frightened of change. One recurrent theme has been its ability to restructure and adapt itself to the circumstances with which it has been faced. Sited on the banks of the silvery Tay, which, as William McGonagall reflected, <b5>
	"flows past Dundee once a day",
	the city is one of the most beautiful estuarial settings. The beauty of its surroundings has, however, provided a picturesque backdrop to some tumultuous times.
	In its long history, Dundee has been destroyed at least twice--once during the dynastic disputes between our two kingdoms in the 14th century, and again during the civil conflict between the Crown and Parliament in the 17th century. Neither, however, has posed an impediment to the growth of my home town, which continued at a great rate during the 19th century, when the city embraced technological and economic change to become what was known as "Juteopolis"--the centre of the world's jute production. Links with the Indian sub-continent remain today. Dundee was a city of immense wealth and, indeed, of immense differences in income and opportunity. It was a truly radical city--outside Glasgow, perhaps at times the most radical in the UK.
	Dundee provided a platform in the early 20th century for Winston Churchill, who was then part of the Liberal Government who introduced many progressive and impressive reforms, changing the social provision of this country for ever. Although Churchill lasted in the seat for 14 years, he was uniquely ousted by the only prohibitionist Christian Socialist Member of Parliament, Neddy Scrymgeour.
	During my lifetime, changes in the city have been even greater. I and my generation have witnessed a massive transformation in the city's outlook, economy and physical environment. Gone are the days when the "standard fayre" was a pie, a pint and an onion bridie. We have moved to the Budweiser and bun served at Dundee contemporary arts centre, of which I am proud to be a director, which has transformed the city's outlook as a provider of culture and art. William Topaz McGonagall, whom we in Dundee would call a worthy, would certainly write a poem in the hilarious vein, which unfairly earned him the title of world's worst poet, chronicling his amazement at the changes that have been effected in the city in the 99 years since his death.
	The city is currently building itself out of the 1960s city-centre planning blight that is so prevalent throughout the UK. It is not frightened of change. As a previous two-time chair of the Dundee partnership and economic development and housing convenor of the city, I like to think that I have made some contribution to the process and helped Dundee to meet the demands of the 21st century.
	Gone are the days when Dundee was known as the city of jute, jam and journalism. Now, we boast many leading- edge companies, such as NCR, Michelin, ABB Nitra and a host of smaller, research-based enterprises that are building on the biomedical expertise and computer-game technology of our city's two universities. I am proud of my city's progress and look forward to participating in that process and serving as its advocate here in Parliament.
	The House and Dundee can rest assured that I shall do all I can to assist the civic process. I shall also do what I can to assist the modernisation of the House. I should like to pick up a theme that I have heard discussed in the past few weeks: the disengagement of electors from our political processes. Setting aside the television coverage, which tends to put people off anyway, I got the feeling while going around my constituency during the campaign that many people believe that it is the politicians who have distanced themselves from the electors.
	Wherever we stand on modernisation, a vital role for the House is to re-engage with electors, especially young people. I have had the privilege of visiting schools and taking part in debates. I have seen the passion, commitment and great interest that many young people have. My Conservative opponent nearly got lynched in one school when he kept referring to the Scottish Executive as the "White Heather Club", but he certainly gave dimension to the debate and that should be continued.
	I shall continue the campaign for modern practices pursued by my predecessor, John McAllion, to whom I pay tribute. I know that the Whips in the House will have heaved a collective sigh of relief now that John has moved to the Scottish Parliament, where he is technically under the control of Tom McCabe, the Labour business manager there. Throughout his time here, John advocated continual improvement in the lives and economic prosperity of his constituents, and I know that he will continue to do so in Holyrood. John and I and all the other elected representatives for Dundee will work as a team to put the case for our city. I am proud to have been elected to represent my home town and I shall do everything in my power to ensure that the best case is advanced for the city.

Richard Shepherd: The speech by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) was a cheer to me. One of the very first cities to enter my consciousness was Dundee: I was born in Aberdeen and my mother comes from Glasgow, and our journeys between the two settled on Dundee, whose romance has never left me. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the great jute industry which, in a sense, opened up Scotland and brought the world to Scotland, so part of his history as a man of Dundee extends much further than the borders of Europe.
	When the jute trade, which had created great wealth and prosperity, went into decline, Dundee shared the experience of many of our great cities. I give a cheer for what the hon. Gentleman had to say in that respect. I was especially moved by the fact that he believes in representing the people of Dundee. I believe profoundly that the purpose of the House is to bring together people from all the parts of this island of ours to represent the people who live real lives--those who suffer the varying fortunes and prosperity of their town or region. I wish the hon. Gentleman well--his was a bonny and fair speech.
	Before the House today are certain motions, and every speaker has touched on them--indeed, the hon. Member for Dundee, East did so as well. It is a cause of sorrow to me that we seem to be in a court in which the prosecution determines how long the defence may have to make its case. That was not always the tradition of the House. I should have liked the Leader of the House to be present for my speech, because I agree with much that was said by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), who held forth the hopes for one of the most profound and forensic of cross-examiners of previous Governments, who could use procedures that were more open in those times to cause great difficulty to the Government.
	I wonder what would happen if there were yet another Scott inquiry. I remember the formidable arguments that Sir Richard advanced to demonstrate the improprieties and the actions of people in high places. I was convinced that his arguments were right, and I along with one other Conservative Back Bencher supported the critique that Sir Richard Scott made of the actions taken by government. He said that certain Ministers had failed in their constitutional duty. I can think of no more severe rebuke. We are talking not of pennies that are stolen but of people who fail in their constitutional responsibilities.
	In a sense, that is why I feel that the burdens of the arguments that have been advanced in response to the motions are a real failure in a constitutional sense. I would have liked to remind the Leader of the House that his job is as set out in the traditional sense by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire. The right hon. Gentleman represents the House to the Executive. The formation of how we go about our businesses must allow the defence, if I may so categorise the other position, the opportunity to make its case--the Opposition's case. The motions arrogate power to the Executive--not the House as a collective of individual representatives, such as the hon. Member for Dundee, East and me, of defined areas in the country--and to the Government and the Crown.
	A great Member retired at the end of the previous Parliament. He used to characterise the historic function of the House as a struggle against the powers of the Crown. In the course of our democratic history, however, the Crown moved from the end of the Mall to Downing street, and with that came the distinction that was lost. The Crown now so entirely controls the House that the opportunity for us to make a contrary case is diminished. The motions will enforce that.
	There is no opportunity to make representations prior to the determination by the Government of what is the appropriate length of debate. Why is it that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), who led for the Opposition from the Front Bench, and all my other hon. Friends have so taken agin these proposed measures? If I were taking Oakeshott as my guide, I would say, "I do not know where we are going sometimes. I can only guide myself by past experience."
	The experience of the previous Parliament was lamentable. We ended up with no safety valve. There were no means by which we could say, "This was insufficient." My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and three other colleagues protested in a Committee Room. The Government insisted, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire said, that what was not true was true and that the House had considered a Bill when it had not.
	I have spoken about justice lying in that cross-section of the detail of procedure. However, the justice that we are talking about concerns liberty, the liberty of the people whom we represent. There are those who argue that Parliament is in decline, and we know why that is. What difference do we make? If I want to do a deal, like Mr. Ecclestone, I deal direct with Government. None of those matters ever came before the House.
	Our constituents are not foolish. We have no weight in the balance of things. Perhaps when there is a Major-type Government with a small majority, where persuasion can alter the conduct of individual Members who support that Government, that will make a difference. In these great days, however, there is fealty to party. That is not to denigrate the concept of party, because I do not doubt that every Member on the Government Benches supports the Labour party, and that those Members who sit round me support the Conservative party. But the control of patronage runs through the whole system.
	The Leader of the House told us that the motions were built on reports produced by the House. With my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), I served on the Modernisation Committee. We consistently asked for a simple thing--an analysis of how the system had worked in practice. Rational people sat down and pursued rationally a Bill's individually weighted progress, allowing for differing tolerances, but that turned out so badly that the Liberal Democrat representative, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) who, if I may say so, had prattled on in Committee about the merits of the arrangements, saw his party vote against every single measure.

Paul Tyler: Had the hon. Gentleman been in his usual place earlier, he would have heard me explain in detail why we objected to that motion and why we think that the present motion is an improvement. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not present, but perhaps he will at least give me credit for having explained that carefully. Since I was Chief Whip at the time, I was giving guidance to my colleagues; I was not accepting guidance from anybody else.

Richard Shepherd: Building on experience, why should we suppose that the arrangements set out in the motion will be any different? We can only put our trust in the good will of the Leader of the House not to impose the guillotine--which, effectively, is what the arrangement amounts to--according to his or the Government's view, as opposed to that of other hon. Members. However, that runs contrary to everything that has happened.
	The Leader of the House will not be aware that, during the four short years of the previous Parliament, when he was representing this country abroad, the Labour Government, of all Governments, imposed more guillotines than Mrs. Thatcher did in 11 years. That is passed off as a simple thing, but I fought many of those guillotines because, as has been said, they involved our liberty, justice and relevance. That is all that I have to say on the issue.
	I tabled an amendment to the motion which was not selected. However, I did so to try to shout to the House and those who are listening that, effectively, the motion gives the Executive the power to determine every jot and title of the business of the House and therefore strikes at our very function and at those whom we represent.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: It is always a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) because he frequently expresses the views of the electorate in terms with which people identify.
	Parliaments were created precisely to represent people's views, however they are expressed and wherever they come from. I am speaking today because Parliament matters as a representation of what the electorate think. Those who say that the recent election proved conclusively that people were turned off by voting and did not want to be involved are not confronting something that ought to be important to us. The electorate are concerned that their views, worries and upsets should be spoken about freely and simply in Parliament. If they do not believe that we are doing that job or, even worse, if they think that we are busy talking about our own interests, but not theirs, they no longer feel that their votes have an effect.
	During the election, I spoke to many people who were concerned that the voting expected of them was no longer relevant to their lives. They did not feel that Her Majesty's Government and, in particular, Parliament reflected their real worries. Unlike the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), they did not discuss with me the procedures of the House of Commons. It would be nice to think that many of my constituents in Crewe and Nantwich have an intimate understanding of the role of Select Committees and the decisions on which procedural motions have an effect but--brilliant though they all are--sadly, that is not the case. The reality is that people want hon. Members to raise their problems in the House in language with which they identify, which they understand and which represents them.
	If the House organises its work in a way that appears to exclude the rights of Back Benchers in favour of the organised juggernaut of government, and appears to make it more difficult for people's worries to be communicated to those in charge, the electorate will become uneasy about the process of government. That process governs people's lives, and is not a matter of which party is in power. When we alter the House's procedures enough to take away some Back-Bench rights, we take away hon. Members' right to represent ordinary voters.
	I have been in the House a long time, under Governments of all shapes, sizes and colours. They have all organised the programme of the House for their own convenience, to get what they wanted out of it. All Prime Ministers believe that they speak for God--although there is not much evidence for that--so I am not surprised that they should want to get the measures that concern them on to the statute book. However, the tentacles of modern government reach much further, extending beyond the laws of the country to all those matters that impinge on people's lives every day but which are not discussed in the House.
	I am worried not by the way in which legislation is examined or changed but by the continuing aim of speeding up its movement through Parliament. That removes the right of Back-Bench Members to give voice to what they are told by constituents.
	We have been told that time is a weapon but that we should not use it. Often, however, time allows constituents to tell hon. Members what is wrong with legislative proposals. Time is the oil that makes legislation move forward at a speed that is acceptable to the electorate. If people no longer find our laws acceptable, they will begin to withdraw their support.
	I am delighted to see my young friend the Parliamentary Secretary on the Front Bench. Perhaps it was cruel to land him, on his first appearance, with what I consider to be a negative proposal that will amount to a retrograde step. It is not new: it is the latest in a series of changes that are having a direct effect on the workings of the House. We have heard that the proposals are part of an experiment, and that they will not last, but when will the experiment end? I have heard a lot about timetabling, but nothing about the timetable for the experiment. Will the House of Commons have time to evaluate the experiment's effect?
	When the electorate become uneasy about their lines of communication with the Government, and no longer think that their views are being represented as a whole, they will believe that alienation is their only answer. They will look for other means of expression outside Parliament, local government and the recognised norms of a democratic society. That is extremely dangerous.
	It would be foolish to claim that the measure before us today, which is quite a small change, will automatically lead us down that path, but the thinking behind it could. That is the real worry: the feeling that the Executive must always have their way, that the Government must always get their legislation through whenever and by whatever means they want. That way lies perdition in a democratic society. Those who elect and send us here are varied and subject to many different pressures. If the gap between them and us, and between Parliament and what happens outside, becomes unbridgeable, there will be no need for timetables because our decisions will have no impact and be of no use. Ultimately, they will be of no worth to the electorate.

David Cameron: I am pleased to follow the maiden speeches of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) and the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke). Both spoke movingly and amusingly about their constituencies. I am glad that the hon. Member for Dundee, East is a true blue in the sense that he supports Dundee. It is our role to turn him blue in other ways; I look forward to trying to do that.
	I am delighted to make my maiden speech in a debate on our procedures. I have worked in two Departments--the Treasury and the Home Office--as a special adviser, and I was therefore one of the bad guys, always in a rush to get legislation through the House in order to prove that the Executive were delivering their programme. However, experience shows that too many Bills are passed too quickly, often with too little scrutiny and to little concrete effect. I have therefore enjoyed listening to the debate on the Government's suggestion for improving matters. I remain sceptical about their solution.
	I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). Both his speeches today were incredibly inspiring. As a new boy, I shall try to remember those lessons about our role and that of the House of Commons. The balance has tipped too far in favour of the Executive, and I am highly suspicious about programming Bills in advance and separating debates from votes.
	I listened carefully to the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) about being independent Members and listening to the arguments. I remember working with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) when he was Home Secretary. We lost many votes in the other place, and my right hon. and learned Friend asked our Minister there why we kept losing them. He replied, "Home Secretary, I am afraid that, although I get all our peers to come and vote, they listen to the arguments and they do not always go the right way."
	It is a privilege and an honour to represent the constituency of Witney and the people of west Oxfordshire. Witney is a seat rich in history and blessed with some of England's most stunning towns, villages, buildings and countryside. It stretches from the market town of Chipping Norton in the north to the banks of the Thames in the south, and includes the thriving market towns of Witney, Carterton, Woodstock, Burford and Eynsham.
	The western boundary is Oxfordshire's county boundary and includes Cotswold villages of great beauty such as Taynton and Idbury. To the east, the seat stretches towards Oxford's city limits, taking in Begbroke and Yarnton. There are 115 villages and settlements in valleys and plains watered by the Dorn, the Glyme, the Evenlode and the Windrush.
	Burford was home to one of our great Speakers, William Lenthall, who stood up so clearly for the independence of the House and his office. West Oxfordshire can also boast of great statesmen. It contains the birth and burial places of Winston Churchill--Blenheim and Bladon.
	We have great generals, such as John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough, who was rewarded with Blenheim palace for his victories in the war of the Spanish succession. As we, on the Conservative Benches, settle our own issue of succession--Spanish or otherwise--I hope that our battles are shorter and slightly less bloody.
	West Oxfordshire's political history extends to all traditions. The Levellers, who are now regarded as heroic early socialists, rebelled during the civil war because they believed that their leader, Cromwell, had betrayed the principles for which they fought. I am sure that Labour Members who might sometimes feel the same way do not need reminding that the leaders of that rebellion were rounded up and shot in Burford's churchyard. William Morris, the socialist visionary, lived and is buried at Kelmscott manor in my constituency, and I have no hesitation in urging all hon. Members to visit that beautiful village on the banks of the Thames which time seems to have passed by.
	Since 1945, west Oxfordshire has been represented by Sir Douglas Dodds-Parker, who parachuted into France in the 1940s; by Neil Marten, who served with the special forces during the war before embarking on a long and distinguished ministerial career; and by Douglas Hurd, now Lord Hurd, who was an outstanding Foreign Secretary. This brings me neatly to the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward).
	I know that it is traditional to pay tribute to one's immediate predecessor, and I have no hesitation in saying that I agreed with almost everything that he said in the first half of the previous Parliament, when he was a trenchant critic of the Government. It was only when he moved to the Labour Benches and supported that Government that our views started to diverge. I know that he worked hard for people in west Oxfordshire and must have felt strongly to leave such a magnificent constituency with such friendly and welcoming people. However, he remains a constituent, and a not insignificant local employer--not least in the area of domestic service. We are, in fact, quite close neighbours. On a clear day, from the hill behind my cottage, I can almost see some of the glittering spires of his great house.
	West Oxfordshire's economy includes a wide diversity of agriculture and small and medium-sized businesses. Witney was for years dominated by blankets, beer and its railway. There remains just one blanket factory, the beer is predominantly brewed elsewhere and the railway has been closed. I will always support moves to examine reopening our railway to Oxford and extending the line to Carterton. Witney and west Oxfordshire are now beacons of enterprise and success. A range of service, technology and light industrial businesses have thrived in our area, and with the Arrows and Benetton Formula 1 teams, we are becoming the grand prix capital of the world. Our unemployment rate is close to the lowest in the country. However, our farming and tourism businesses have suffered badly from the foot and mouth outbreak and need time and an understanding, enabling Government to recover.
	RAF Brize Norton, adjoining the relatively modern town of Carterton, is now one of our largest employers. It is one of Britain's longest-established air bases, and has played an important role in the defence of this country and in servicing our armed forces. Its facilities and expertise in air-to-air refuelling make it the perfect location for the future strategic tanker aircraft and I will always support its role. The now ageing VC10s that thunder down the runway loaded with fuel for our fighter aircraft are fondly known locally as "Prescotts", because they are able to refuel two Jaguars simultaneously--one under each wing. There was some suggestion during the election campaign that the right hon. Gentleman's name should be appended to some other type of aircraft, perhaps a fighter that packed a bit more of a punch.
	Carterton is a rapidly growing town and in need of new services, such as a sixth form for its excellent community college, the campaign for which I strongly support. West Oxfordshire has an excellent Conservative-led district council, which has invested in those kinds of facilities, including some in Carterton, and I look forward to working with it in the years ahead.
	Chipping Norton, long famous for William Bliss's tweed mill, which remains a striking landmark, is a classic Cotswold market town. It is also home to the kennels of the Heythrop hunt. There is a long tradition of hunting in west Oxfordshire, originally based in the royal forest of Wychwood, where Ethelred II established the first royal hunting lodge more than nine centuries ago. I will always stand up for the freedom of people in the countryside to take part in country sports, and, in the light of today's debate, would always be concerned about any limits set on a debate on a hunting Bill that could curtail that freedom.
	Under its beautiful and serene exterior, west Oxfordshire faces important issues and problems. Rural poverty has been exacerbated by foot and mouth. The decline of local services, emphasised by the tragic closure of Burford hospital during the last Parliament, has angered local people. We still have cottage hospitals in Witney and Chipping Norton, which I strongly support.
	Rumours of budget cuts for our hospitals and the dreaded "r" word--rationalisation--for our ambulance service are rife. Those emergency services and hospitals play a vital role in rural communities and they should be expanded, not discarded. In the context of today's debate, the health reform bill promises decentralisation, but we shall need a lot of time to scrutinise it and ensure that it really will deliver a local NHS. I hope that that can happen under the proposed system.
	In Witney, there is huge pressure on housing and great concern that the Government's top-down housing targets will mean building on greenfield sites and wrecking the countryside that we love. That is another issue of great local importance.
	The theme of how we make and scrutinise decisions runs through today's debate. I wanted to be elected to the House because I believe in what it stands for and what it can do to hold Governments to account, air grievances and raise issues that people in west Oxfordshire care about. I also wanted to be elected because, through action here, one can get things done.
	I shall support all the efforts being made to restore the House as the cockpit of debate, and the place where policies are announced, debated and decided and where the Government are scrutinised and challenged, whether on the Floor of the Chamber or through strengthened, independent Select Committees. I cannot see how deciding in advance how much time should be given to a Bill and systematic guillotining can help in that regard, but I am a new boy and I am listening to the arguments.
	The beauties of west Oxfordshire of which I have spoken--the glorious view from the top of Burford high street and Pope's tower in Stanton Harcourt--sum up for many people what they feel about their British identity. I know that we shall always be able to treasure that identity, whether it rests on those feelings or on something else, but what matters just as much as our identity is our self-determination, and our ability to make decisions as a nation and to question and challenge them properly in this place. The ability to continue doing so rests in our own hands. It is a privilege that I shall try to preserve while serving the kind and generous people of west Oxfordshire. 5.57 pm

Gerald Howarth: It is rare for an hon. Member to have the privilege of following such an outstanding maiden speech. I congratulate my friend and hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) on a superb speech that provided a fascinating and witty discourse on the qualities of the Witney constituency, which we have not heard so eloquently expressed previously.
	I am bound to say, and as my hon. Friend may know, I regard him as a wonderful replacement for his predecessor, and I have no hesitation in saying that. He not only kept to the conventions of the House in his witty description of the circumstances of his arrival in Witney, but made extremely apposite points about the debate. We look forward with great pleasure to hearing more of him in the House, because he is a splendid addition to our Conservative ranks. In him, I see a conviction politician who will fight for the interests of his constituents and of our party and Parliament.
	I have only two minutes in which to address the House on these important matters, so, having had the pleasure of entertaining hon. Members at rather greater length in the previous Parliament, I shall be brief. I oppose what the Government propose, because the debate, like the discussion on the programme motion, has shown the contempt in which the Government hold Parliament.
	My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) described deferred Divisions as the visitors' book. It may be signed at 3.30 pm on Wednesdays, immediately after Prime Minister's questions, which has been moved from Tuesdays and Thursdays. There is minimum inconvenience for hon. Members, and right hon. Members in particular, who can sign the visitors' book at 3.30 pm. The introduction of that visitors's book is greatly to the disadvantage of the House and our procedures and, like my right hon. and learned Friend, I shall not sign it throughout this Parliament, because it is an affront.
	As for the programming motion, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) mentioned how many times the present Government, in comparison with the previous one, had tabled guillotine motions. Moreover, the time allowed for debates on such motions has been reduced from three hours to 45 minutes, and then to no time at all, with the Question being put forthwith. That demonstrates the contempt in which the House has been held by this Government--this Labour party.
	We should not see this development in isolation, for the Leader of the other place has made clear his plans for extensive changes there as well. We are witnessing an assault not just on the procedures of the House of Commons but on those of the other place, where it is proposed--not yet formally proposed, but the idea has been floated--that there be no votes during Committee stages.
	It is to the great credit of the upper House that it has engaged in some of the more extensive debates on important issues that are of concern to our constituents, and that matters have been subjected to greater scrutiny there than has been possible here. The measure introduced today does the Government no credit whatever. 6.1 pm

Dominic Grieve: This has been a good debate. It struck me as much more measured than the debate in which we first discussed the question of motions of this type, and perhaps rather sombre in tone. I shall return to that in a moment.
	One reason why this debate has been more good- humoured than the last may be the maiden speeches that we have heard this afternoon. I especially enjoyed those of the hon. Members for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) and for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke), and, of course, of my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), whose constituency I know well. He succeeded in depicting it in short words but with a great deal of feeling.
	All those new Members are welcome. It is, perhaps, especially apposite that they should have made maiden speeches this afternoon when we are debating issues that touch our future, our existence and our relevance. For what concerns us today is not just the programming motion in itself: as has been said, it is linked with the overall direction in which the House is going.
	Hon. Members speak of modernisation and the need for it. I am second to none in saying that there are numerous areas in which the practices of the House, and its efficiency, could do with review; but the key issue for us to consider is whether we are going down the right path in carrying out that task, or whether we are simply passing an ad hoc measure whose purpose seems largely to be to suit the needs of the Executive rather than those of the House.
	I hope this is not an omen, but one thing about the Labour speakers today struck me as noteworthy. Let me for the moment leave aside the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), who made an interesting speech with much of which I had little difficulty in agreeing. As far as I could see, not one Labour member of the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons--apart from the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), who contributed briefly to the earlier debate on the guillotine motion--spoke today, although the Committee's recommendation is being presented to the House. Yet this is supposed to be a debate initiated by the House itself.
	My impression is that Labour Members who have made valuable contributions today have been very guarded in their reception of the proposals. I shall say more about those contributions shortly. No one expressed great enthusiasm except the hon. Member for Cambridge, and even she had some reservations. We saw a succession of critics on both sides of the House, the only two enthusiasts being the Leader of the House and the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who was a member of the Committee. I am sorry that he is not present now.
	I do not want to spend too much time on deferred votes. I agree with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), who rightly said that it was the lesser of the two issues that we are considering. I regret the fact that we brought the deferred votes procedure into operation, because it shows that the House is approaching its problems wrongly. It may be inconvenient to vote after 10 pm, and that may be a reflection of bad programming. However, rather than addressing how we could better programme or modernise our procedures so as to minimise such votes, we have committed and will continue to commit the great error of separating vote from debate.
	There may not be many hon. Members present in the Chamber during debates, but at least there is a centrality to those activities, which is maintained when votes follow debates. The previous exceptions to the rule that we vote after debates were few. It has now been turned into a rubber-stamping exercise carried out on a Wednesday afternoon, and it is difficult to escape the conclusion that for some people it is a relatively painless way of improving their voting record.
	If we lose the centrality of the Chamber and its activities, we will lose something precious. We are not social workers in our constituencies--that may be a role that we have taken on, but it was not the role that we were elected to undertake. Our role is in the process of debate in Parliament, and even the gossip in the Tea Room is important in that exchange of political views because it brings us together. If we compartmentalise ourselves--as the deferred voting process tends to do--we do ourselves and the country a great disservice. I hope that we will revisit deferred voting, and that when we do, we will have the courage to tackle the problem that it was designed to address in a different way.
	The proposal on programme motions goes much further than the system that we had last year. I was particularly struck by the contributions of the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent, Central and for Cambridge, who acknowledged that much more needed to be done than merely tinkering with programme motions. I shall not run through a list of all my hon. Friends who made telling contributions, but my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who is a great exponent of our parliamentary tradition, should be listened to with care when he says that we are paddling ourselves into irrelevance and oblivion. That is how this will be perceived.
	It is all very well having programme motions. I welcome them, and I have sat on Standing Committees that have been subject to programme motions. I acknowledge to the Leader of the House that if the system of Programming Sub-Committees that he is establishing works, it could be a great improvement. However, I am bound to flag up my anxieties.
	First, the secrecy surrounding the process is all very well, but how can we learn from it if we are denied access to the Sub-Committees' operations and deliberations? After all, most parliamentarians learn from their mistakes, as do most people in their daily lives, yet those excluded from a Sub-Committee's deliberations will have no idea whether it got it right or not, except anecdotally. It is scandalous that we are setting up such a structure with no transparency.
	Whole areas will be of no concern to the Committees and their Programming Sub-Committees, because much of this programming business relates to matters dealt with after the business has returned to the Floor of the House or when it comes back from the other place. In the last Parliament, the Government extensively used the House of Lords to rewrite and amend legislation. I see Labour Members shaking their heads. I sat on the Committee that considered the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. That Bill commanded support from both sides of the House and was acknowledged when it left Committee to be in a woefully defective state. The Government, perfectly properly, amended it in the House of Lords. However, although that Bill was all the more the responsibility of the House since it concerned the electoral process, we had virtually no opportunity to consider it in detail when it returned to this place.
	The guillotine that was imposed then was identical to what we will have if we pass the programming motion under consideration. I cannot see the difference. In both cases a ministerial decision determines how long should be allowed for debate and the programming takes place accordingly. There is no indication as to whether there will be an opportunity for input or consultation of any kind. I fail to understand how that can be an improvement on the existing system or how it will be to the House's credit. During today's debate, one hon. Member after another has highlighted the central point that it is wrong to pass legislation that has not been scrutinised.
	We have heard a great deal about filibustering and about hon. Members who hold up proceedings. We have to face the fact that with hundreds of Members of Parliament and, thank goodness, with some who will not slavishly follow the Whips, there will be people with bees in their bonnets. Some of them may be unreasonable, as may be those who have lobbied them, but they are entitled to a hearing if this place is to have any relevance.
	The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central rightly pointed out that from about 1866 onwards power started to ebb away from this place to the Executive. It is at least worth remembering that in the 19th century considerable tolerance was accorded to windbag Members of Parliament who droned into the night about their pet subjects. Ultimately, that was a matter of forbearance by the Executive, whom the Leader of the House represents just as I hope that he will represent our interests across the Chamber. That forbearance was based on the principle that it was necessary to have exhaustive discussion because if we do not, as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) so rightly said, people may start to resort to extra-parliamentary methods to achieve their ends.
	We should remember what happened as recently as last autumn when large numbers of people took part in a protest that paralysed this country and brought about a change in the Government's taxation policy. It may be thought that that was to the advantage of my party, but it frightened me. It seemed to be a classic example of a breakdown of parliamentary democracy. I speak as someone with a half-French background; there, I am afraid that the notions of parliamentary democracy are not well developed. In that country, such action is an institutionalised phenomenon and is seen as the only way to bring home to the Executive and the elite who govern the country the people's dissatisfaction at the way in which the country is being run. Mercifully, we have been free of that, but when I look at what is being proposed today, I am left with the feeling that this is another nail in the coffin.

Edward Leigh: Will my hon. Friend summarise his views before finishing? It is important to know what the Opposition Front Bench would do in office. Does he agree that the Government have a right to get their Bills through and to do so in a reasonable time but that the Opposition also have a right to determine what subjects should be debated within that time? If there were to be a Conservative Government, would he ensure that there were discussions through the usual channels before any vote on a programming motion and that there would be such a vote only if discussions broke down?

Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend makes powerful and compelling points, but I would go further, in this sense.
	Many have congratulated the Leader of the House on his appearance at the Dispatch Box, and I do, too. He has an opportunity, but the question is, will it be taken? If indeed the Government wish to bring forward proposals, along the lines of those of the Norton committee, for substantial reform of how Parliament can hold the Executive to account, he will have support, and if things such as the programme motion before us were part of those proposals, it would be much easier to be reassured about the Government's intentions. But at the moment, every time that modernisation comes along, it is simply another nail in the coffin of the few remaining--doubtless sometimes abused and tawdry--powers left to Back Benchers to make a noise about something. I tell the Leader of the House that if this is the best that we are going to get, we shall be in a sad and sorry place by the end of this Parliament.
	For myself, I will vote against these motions. I believe that they are wrong. The only circumstances in which I could support them would be if they were part of a total package that had been brought about by co-operation. The willingness to co-operate exists, but the will on the Government side appears wholly absent.

Stephen Twigg: I start on a positive note. I welcome at least the first part of the concluding remarks made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and sincerely hope that, with a new Parliament, we can develop the good will that he mentioned. I would much prefer that the process of debate and consideration of the reform and modernisation of the House had full cross-party support, and that Members from the main Opposition party did not feel, as they have today, unable to support the proposals.
	We have had an interesting debate, in which Members have spoken from a range of perspectives. It is the first debate in this Parliament on the modernisation of the House of Commons. Let me quote something that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said last night in his winding-up speech on the debate on the Loyal Address, because I believe that it responds to some of the points that have been made tonight by Members on both sides of the House. He said that two important purposes of modernisation were, first,
	"to enable the House to hold the Government to account and to scrutinise their Executive decisions and legislation . . . good scrutiny makes for good government . . . The second objective of modernisation must be to ensure that the hours and working methods of this House belong to the same century in which most of our constituents live and work."--[Official Report, 27 June 2001; Vol. 370, c. 738.]
	Very often, these debates create the impression that those two purposes are alternatives--opposites. I see no reason why we should have to choose between them. I see no reason why we should not seek to achieve both.
	The hon. Member for Beaconsfield mentioned the Norton commission and the Hansard Society, both of which have made positive contributions to this debate and both of which, in their different ways, seek to meet both criteria set out by my right hon. Friend last night.
	I thank all Members who participated in the debate. I apologise if I cannot respond to all the points made, but I undertake to write to any hon. Member whose points I do not address. I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield about the three excellent maiden speeches that we have heard.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) made a powerful and confident speech. I pay tribute to the work that she did before entering the House on issues of international development and fighting world poverty. I was interested to hear that Glasgow, Maryhill is a farming constituency and to hear of her ardent support--new-found ardent support--for Partick Thistle.
	I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) because I missed the opening of his speech, but he made a strong commitment, as did his predecessor in the House, to the modernisation of the House and its practices, and I pay tribute to that.
	The hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) made a very witty, powerful contribution to the debate. I am sure that he was pleased to bring to an end the brief period in which Witney was represented by the Labour party, although when he started to talk about the Levellers I wondered whether he might be planning to follow his predecessor and cross the Floor. I suspect that that might not happen. I congratulate all three maiden speakers.
	Today's debate has focused mostly on programming, but I was struck by the fact that two Conservative Members said that they had never participated in a deferred Division and intended never to sign what they termed the visitors' book. I was worried that if that became a trend throughout the Conservative party, Labour's already large majority would become larger still. In the interests of democracy, I encourage other Conservative Members to participate in deferred Divisions.
	We heard some pretty synthetic anger about the use of deferred Divisions. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) seemed to be concerned that our constituents might discover the timing of a vote and lobby us about how we should vote. I do not imagine that any of us would have a problem with that. If a deferred Division is on a matter that gives rise to strength of opinion in a constituency, surely it is part of the proper democratic process that people can participate.
	The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) suggested that deferring Divisions meant that Members would be less informed when participating in votes. If anything, a deferred Division enables a Member to be more informed. A Member who was not present for the debate has the time to study Hansard. It is not reasonable to suggest, therefore, that people who do not participate in debates are any less well informed than those who vote in the traditional way at the end of a debate.
	The motion gives more rights to Standing Committees, as was grudgingly acknowledged by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, when he said that it could be a great improvement. That will be the test in the coming year as we experiment with the proposal. The Government will still table a programme motion on Second Reading, to set an out date from Committee and the overall allocation of time for remaining stages. The motion will, for the first time, give the Standing Committee power to make its own proposals to amend either the out date or the allocation of time for remaining stages. Moreover, the motion obliges the Government to table a motion to give effect to the Standing Committee's proposals, which will be taken forthwith, or, if the proposals are rejected, to have a debate on the Floor of the House. If the proposal is that there should be more time in Standing Committee, the motion cannot be delayed and must be tabled within five sitting days.
	That will enable the Standing Committee and the House to vary an out date and the time for remaining stages in the light of the Committee's sittings. It gives the initiative to the Standing Committee, as the Modernisation Committee concluded that its members are best placed to undertake programming. We have looked at the experience of the previous Session and have tried to learn from it. That is what the Modernisation Committee report seeks to do and the proposals tonight would implement that.
	I shall attempt, albeit briefly, to respond to some of the other contributions. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton quoted a letter from the previous Leader of the House and was concerned that programming does not ensure that all parts of the Bill are scrutinised. Clearly, one of the major purposes of programming is to ensure that that scrutiny happens through all the stages of the Bill. The letter received from my right hon. Friend is evidence of her good faith. She stressed the powers that Opposition parties should have through the process and she tried to review how it was working in practice.
	If the Opposition do not engage with the process, there is little that can be done. That is why the Modernisation Committee has reviewed the proposals to create greater flexibility. If there is good will and hon. Members on both sides of the House participate, we may be able to have more effective scrutiny as a result of the changes.

Angela Browning: Notwithstanding our principled objection to the proposals, once they were agreed there was no question of our not participating in the Programming Sub-Committees; we did participate. The right hon. Lady wrote the letter because Ministers were not complying as she had expected them to.

Stephen Twigg: It is clearly incumbent on all hon. Members, including Ministers, to comply with the letter and the spirit of the changes. That is important because they are as much about the culture as about the rules of the House and any Sessional Order with which we deal.
	I shall move on to try to address some of the other points made by right hon. and hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) said that, although programming was acceptable, compensating changes should be made. As I have said, the aim of programming is not to reduce scrutiny. My hon. Friend made some important points about pre-legislative scrutiny, but the changes should not be seen in isolation. Pre-legislative scrutiny has already taken place, and we have the opportunity to extend it with the legislation that will be introduced in this Parliament. Hon. Members should view the changes as a package, rather than simply considering each of them in isolation. I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to consider far more pre-legislative scrutiny.
	The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who served as a member of the Modernisation Committee throughout the previous Parliament, made a point, as he did in a previous debate, about the number of guillotine motions during the previous Parliament compared to the period when Baroness Thatcher was Prime Minister. I understand that he arrived at his figure for the number of Bills guillotined by adding guillotine motions to programme motions. I entirely respect the fact that he does not agree with programming; that is the point of this debate, but programming has wide support in the House. If guillotines are considered separately from programme motions, the hon. Gentleman will find that his point does not arise.
	The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) made a point about the Programming Sub-Committees not meeting in public and the lack of available transcripts. I understand that all the formal proceedings of the Committees are minuted, but that it is not the practice to publish the minutes. That is the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but it is not a decision for the Government. The Sub-Committees are constituted as Select Committees. They are deliberative Committees, and Mr. Speaker has ruled that they sit in private. That has advantages, because a more consensual approach can be established to ensure that the concerns of Opposition and Government Members, as well as those of Front Benchers, are included, but such issues can be reviewed and are open for debate as the process of modernisation and reform of the House continues.
	The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), to whom I apologise because I was not in the Chamber to hear all his speech, made an important contribution. He made the suggestion, among others, that the Modernisation Committee could be reconstituted as an "Improvement of Scrutiny Committee". Clearly, that is one of the many suggestions that can be considered as matters progress. Of course, the Procedure Committee and the Liaison Committee, both of which are chaired by Back Benchers, serve as powerful advocates for change and improvement in the practices of the House. The most positive way forward is to achieve the best possible co-operation between those Committees and the Modernisation Committee during this Parliament.
	If hon. Members will excuse me, I shall draw my speech to a close by referring more generally to the background to the debate. Several Members have referred to the role of Members of Parliament. Sometimes the impression given is that Labour Members are super social workers and that Opposition Members simply want to scrutinise legislation. That suggestion is deeply unfair; all hon. Members seek to do our best not only in representing our constituents but in scrutinising legislation and the Government.
	The proposals are experimental and are based on a review of how the previous proposals worked in the previous Session. If they do not work, we can review and reconsider them in a year's time. As has been said, there was support from all parties in the Modernisation Committee. The former Member for East Devon, Sir Peter Emery, supported the proposals, as did Labour and Liberal Democrat Members who served on that Committee.
	Many hon. Members have talked about the low turnout at the recent election and the disconnection between people and politics. The yah-boo politics, the time-wasting and the unnecessarily adversarial style in the House contribute more than anything to the alienation that is felt out there about politics and its relevance to peoples' lives. Being kept up all night to take part in debates makes no sense, does not mean that we make good law and is not a positive advertisement--

It being half-past Six o'clock, Madam Deputy Speaker put the Question, pursuant to Order [this day]
	The House divided: Ayes 265, Noes 125.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That in the current Session of Parliament Orders A to I below shall have effect:
	A. Programme Motions
	(1) If, before second reading of a bill, notice of a motion providing--
	(a) for committal of the bill, and
	(b) for any proceedings on the bill to be programmed,
	is given by a Minister of the Crown, the motion may be made immediately after second reading, and Standing Order No. 63 shall not apply to the Bill.
	(2) Such a motion is to be called a programme motion.
	(3) An order made by the House as a result of a programme motion is to be called a programme order.
	(4) A motion to vary or supplement a programme order is also to be called a programme motion.
	(5) A programme motion may provide for the allocation of time for any proceedings on a bill.
	(6) Except in the following three cases, or where paragraph (8) of Programme Order B (Programming Committees) applies, the question on a programme motion is to be put forthwith.
	(7) The first exception is where--
	(a) a Standing Committee has reported a resolution under paragraph (11) of Sessional Order C (Programming Sub-Committees) proposing an alteration of the date by which the bill is to be reported to the House, and
	(b) the motion made under paragraph (12) of Sessional Order C (Programming Sub-Committees) does not give effect to the Standing Committee's proposal.
	(8) The second exception is where the motion makes further provision for proceedings on consideration and third reading of the bill otherwise than in accordance with a resolution of a Programming Committee under paragraph (5) of Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) or a resolution of a Standing Committee under paragraph (13) of Sessional Order C (Programming Sub-Committees).
	(9) The third exception is where the motion reduces the amount of time allocated under a programme order for any proceedings on the bill (whether or not it also increases the amount of time allocated for other proceedings on the bill).
	(10) In an excepted case, any question necessary to dispose of proceedings on a programme motion is to be put not later than three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion.
	(11) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted Business) applies to proceedings on a programme motion.
	(12) Standing Order No. 83 (Allocation of Time) does not apply to a programme motion.
	(13) If a programme order applies to a bill, neither Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) nor Standing Order No. 120 (Business Sub-Committee) applies to the bill.
	B. Programming Committees
	(1) This order applies if proceedings in committee of the whole House or on consideration and third reading are subject to a programme order.
	(2) There is to be a committee for the bill consisting of--
	(a) the Chairman of Ways and Means (who is to be chairman of the committee); and
	(b) not more than eight other Members, nominated by the Speaker.
	(3) The committee is to be called the Programming Committee.
	(4) The quorum of the Programming Committee is four.
	(5) The Programming Committee shall consider the allocation of time to proceedings in committee of the whole House or on consideration and third reading and report any resolution which it makes to the House.
	(6) Proceedings in the Programming Committee shall be brought to a conclusion not later than two hours after their commencement.
	(7) For the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (6), the chairman shall--
	(a) first put forthwith any question which has been proposed from the chair and not yet decided; and
	(b) then put successively questions on any motions made by a Minister of the Crown.
	(8) On a motion being made in the House relating to a resolution of the Programming Committee, any question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion shall be put not later than three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of those proceedings.
	(9) If such a motion is agreed to, its provisions shall have effect as if they were included in the programme order for the bill.
	(10) Proceedings on a motion made under paragraph (8) may be entered upon and decided, though opposed, at any hour.
	(11) Resolutions of the Programming Committee--
	(a) may be reported from time to time; and
	(b) subject to the powers of the Speaker or Chairman to select the amendments, new clauses and new schedules to be proposed, may include alterations in the order in which specified proceedings on the bill are to be taken.
	C. Programming Sub-Committees
	(1) If a bill is subject to a programme order which commits it to a standing committee, the order stands referred to the committee and shall be considered by a sub-committee of the committee.
	(2) The sub-committee is to be called the Programming Sub-Committee.
	(3) The Programming Sub-Committee shall consist of--
	(a) the chairman or one of the chairmen of the committee (who is to be chairman of the sub-committee); and
	(b) seven members of the committee, nominated by the Speaker.
	(4) The quorum of the Programming Sub-Committee is four.
	(5) The Programming Sub-Committee shall report to the committee any resolution which it makes about--
	(a) the number of sittings to be allotted to the consideration of the bill in the committee;
	(b) the allocation of the proceedings to each sitting;
	(c) the time at which any proceedings, if not previously concluded, are to be brought to a conclusion;
	(d) the date by which the bill is to be reported to the House;
	(e) the programming of consideration and third reading.
	(6) Proceedings in the Programming Sub-Committee shall be brought to a conclusion not later than two hours after their commencement.
	(7) For the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (6), the chairman shall--
	(a) first put forthwith any question which has been proposed from the chair and not yet been decided; and
	(b) then put forthwith successively questions on any motions made by a Minister of the Crown.
	(8) Resolutions of the Programming Sub-Committee--
	(a) may be reported from time to time; and
	(b) subject to the powers of the chairman to select the amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be proposed, may include alterations in the order in which specified proceedings are to be taken.
	(9) On a motion in the terms of a resolution of the Programming Sub-Committee being made in the committee, any question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion is to be put not later than half an hour after the commencement of those proceedings.
	(10) If the provisions of a resolution of the Programming Sub-Committee under sub-paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph (5) are agreed to (with or without modification) by the committee, the provisions (or the provisions as modified) are to have effect as if they were included in the programme order for the bill.
	(11) Any resolution of the committee--
	(a) proposing an alteration to the date by which the Bill is to be reported to the House; or
	(b) making a recommendation about the programming of the Bill on consideration and third reading;
	shall be reported to the House.
	(12) If a resolution is reported proposing an alteration to the date by which the Bill is to be reported to the House, a supplemental programme motion shall be set down for a day not later than the fifth sitting day after the day when the report was made which may--
	(a) give effect to the Committee's proposal;
	(b) otherwise alter or supplement the provisions of the original programme of the bill; or
	(c) confirm the date set in the original programme order for the bill.
	(13) If a resolution is reported making a recommendation about the programming of the Bill on consideration and third reading, a supplemental programme motion shall be set down before the consideration of the bill on report which may--
	(a) give effect to the Committee's recommendations;
	(b) otherwise alter or supplement the provisions of the original programme of the bill; or
	(c) confirm the original programme order for the bill.
	D. Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings in Standing Committee or in Committee of the whole House
	(1) This order applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings in standing committee or in committee of the whole House to a conclusion in accordance with a programme order.
	(2) The chairman shall put forthwith the following questions (but no others)--
	(a) any question already proposed from the chair;
	(b) any question necessary to bring to a decision a question so proposed;
	(c) the question on any amendment, new clause or new schedule selected by the chairman for separate division;
	(d) the question on any amendment moved or motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
	(e) any other question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.
	(3) On a motion made for a new clause or a new schedule, the chairman shall put only the question that the clause or schedule be added to the bill.
	(4) If two or more questions would fall to be put under paragraph (2)(d) on successive amendments moved or motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the chairman shall instead put a single question in relation to those amendments or motions.
	(5) If two or more questions would fall to be put under paragraph (2)(e) in relation to successive provisions of the bill, the chairman shall instead put a single question in relation to those provisions.
	(6) On conclusion of the proceedings in a committee, the chairman shall report the bill (or such of the bill's provisions as were committed to it) to the House without putting any question.
	E. Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration or third reading
	(1) This order applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings on consideration and third reading to a conclusion in accordance with a programme order.
	(2) The Speaker shall put forthwith the following questions (but no others)--
	(a) any question already proposed from the chair;
	(b) any question necessary to bring to a decision a question so proposed;
	(c) the question on any amendment, new clause or new schedule selected by the Speaker for separate division;
	(d) the question on any amendment moved or motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
	(e) any other question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.
	(3) On a motion made for a new clause or a new schedule, the Speaker shall put only the question that the clause or schedule be added to the bill.
	(4) If two or more questions would fall to be put under paragraph (2)(d) on successive amendments moved or motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single question in relation to those amendments or motions.
	F. Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments
	(1) This order applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments to a conclusion in accordance with a programme order.
	(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any question which has been proposed from the chair and not yet decided.
	(3) If that question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, the Speaker shall then put forthwith--
	(a) a single question on any further amendments of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown; and
	(b) the question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment or (as the case may be) in their Amendment as amended.
	(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith--
	(a) a single question on any amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment; and
	(b) the question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment or (as the case may be) in their Amendment as amended.
	(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House disagrees with the Lords in a Lords Amendment.
	(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the question that this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments.
	(7) As soon as the House has--
	(a) agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments; or
	(b) disposed of an amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to,
	the Speaker shall put forthwith a single question on any amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.
	G. Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords
	(1) This order applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings on any further message from the Lords to a conclusion in accordance with a programme order.
	(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any question which has been proposed from the chair and not yet decided.
	(3) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the question already proposed from the chair.
	(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the question on any motion made by a Minister on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords message.
	(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the question that this House agrees with the Lords in all of the remaining Lords proposals.
	H. Programme orders: Reasons Committee
	(1) This order applies in relation to any Committee to be appointed to draw up Reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with a programme order.
	(2) The Speaker shall put forthwith the question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its chairman.
	(3) The Committee shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
	(4) Proceedings in the Committee shall be brought to a conclusion not later than half an hour after their commencement.
	(5) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (4), the chairman shall--
	(a) first put forthwith any question which has been proposed from the chair and not yet decided; and
	(b) then put forthwith successively questions on motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.
	(6) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further question being put.
	I. Programme orders: supplementary provisions
	(1) The provisions of this order apply to proceedings in the House or in Committee of the whole House on a bill which is subject to a programme order.
	(2) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) applies to the proceedings for any period after ten o'clock (or on Thursday, seven o'clock) allocated to them in accordance with the programme order.
	(3) The proceedings may not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
	(4) If, on a day on which the bill has been set down to be taken as an order of the day, a motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this order, stand over to Seven o'clock--
	(a) that motion stands over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the bill which, in accordance with the programme order, are to be brought to conclusion at or before that time; and
	(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the bill which, in accordance with the programme order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time is postponed for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that motion.
	(5) If a day on which the bill has been set down to be taken as an order of the day is one to which a motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the bill which, in accordance with the programme order, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day is postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that motion.
	(6) No dilatory motion may be made in relation to the proceedings except by a Minister of the Crown; and the question on any such motion is to be put forthwith.
	(7) If at any sitting the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under a programme order, no notice is required of a motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of the programme order.

Deferred Divisions

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [this day],
	That in the current Session of Parliament the following Order shall have effect:
	(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), Standing Order No. 38 (Procedure on divisions) shall not apply if, after the time for the interruption of business, the opinion of the Speaker as to the decision on a question is challenged in respect of any question.
	(2) Standing Order No. 38 (Procedure on divisions) shall apply (and this order shall not apply) to questions--
	(a) on motions or amendments in the course of proceedings on bills or allocating time to or programming such proceedings;
	(b) on motions which may be made without notice;
	(c) on motions to be disposed of immediately following the disposal of amendments proposed thereto, and on such amendments;
	(d) on motions made under--
	(i) paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business);
	(ii) paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 51 (Ways and means motions);
	(iii) Sub-paragraph (1)(a) of Standing Order No. 52 (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills);
	(iv) paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 54 (Consideration of estimates); and
	(v) paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.); and
	(e) on motions made under paragraph 3 below or to which an order made under that paragraph applies.
	(3) After the moment of interruption and the conclusion of proceedings under any other Standing Order which fall to be taken immediately after it, a Minister of the Crown may make a motion to the effect that this order shall not apply to questions on any specified motions; such motion may be proceeded with, though opposed, and the question thereon shall be put forthwith.
	(4) If the opinion of the Speaker is challenged under paragraph (1) of this order, he shall defer the division until half-past Three o'clock on the next Wednesday on which the House shall sit.
	(5) On any Wednesday to which a division has been deferred under paragraph (4) above--
	(a) Members may record their votes on the question under arrangements made by the Speaker;
	(b) votes may be recorded for one and a half hours after half-past Three o'clock, no account being taken of any period during which the House or committee proceeds to a division; and
	(c) the Speaker, or the Chairman, shall announce the result of the deferred division as soon as may be after the expiry of the period mentioned in sub-paragraph (b) above.--[Mr. Heppell.]
	The House divided: Ayes 268, Noes 130.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Business of the House

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That, Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 26th October, 2nd, 23rd and 30th November 2001, 11th, 18th and 25th January, 15th March, 12th and 19th April, 10th May, 21st June, 19th July 2002.--[Mr. Heppell.]

Eric Forth: This is an important matter which--I am sure that you agree, Madam Deputy Speaker--signals an interesting departure from the long-established means of dealing with private Members' Bills. It will not have escaped the notice of the House that, unusually, this year it is proposed that the private Member's Bill cycle starts as early as 26 October and runs through November and January and on to July.
	For some years, the precedent has been established that the final day for the consideration of private Members' Bills is on or about 19 July. In that sense, nothing new has been proposed, but there is a departure in the motion. I am rather disappointed but, frankly, unsurprised that nobody from the Government Front Bench has sought to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, to explain to the House why that change has been made. I do not want to read anything sinister or conspiratorial into that--[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If Members wish to remain in the Chamber, perhaps they could remain quiet while the right hon. Gentleman proceeds.

Eric Forth: I should have thought that a change on that scale would require a certain amount of explanation. A small number of us take an interest in private Members' Bills. Indeed, if I remember rightly, when we last dealt with private Members' Bills just before Dissolution, as many as 26 Members were present, which gives an idea of the interest in such Bills in the House: out of 659 Members, 26 took the trouble to attend the House on a Friday although, regrettably, they witnessed a Bill fall because of the lack of a quorum.
	At least 26 people, therefore, are potentially interested in the motion. I am glad that a few more are here today; perhaps we can engender greater interest in private Members' Bills. However, there is an interesting question to which as yet we have no answer--I hope that I will be able to elicit one from the Minister. We usually expect the cycle for private Members' Bills to start in January. That is a proper procedure which, once the ballot for such Bills has taken place, allows an appropriate period for the legitimate consultation that Members wish to undertake with outside interests--but not, I hope, with the Government. Far too many Government Bills are smuggled through via the process for private Members' Bills, although usually they are pretty obvious and few of them survive. Those Members who are fortunate enough to come high in the ballot may wish to have a legitimate consultation with outside interests and incorporate their suggestions in their Bill. My question is whether, given that someone--surprisingly and out of the blue--is suggesting that we accelerate the process and bring it forward to 26 October--
	It being Seven o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
	Debate to be resumed on Monday 2 July.-- [Mr. Heppell.]

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made,
	That the Motion in the name of Secretary Estelle Morris relating to the draft Special Educational Needs Code of Practice shall be treated as if it related to an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation) in respect of which notice has been given that the instrument be approved--[Mr. Heppell.]

Hon. Members: Object.

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE

Motion made,
	That, notwithstanding paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 102 (Welsh Grand Committee (composition and business)), in respect of its meeting on Tuesday 3rd July, the Welsh Grand Committee shall consist of all Members representing Welsh constituencies, together with Mr. Nigel Evans and Mr. Robert Walter.--[Mr. Heppell.]

Hon. Members: Object.

CRIME REDUCTION (PLYMOUTH)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Heppell.]

Linda Gilroy: Plymouth is the largest city in the far south-west of England, and with its size and position as a major port come a variety of policing and safety challenges. Home to almost 260,000 people, my constituency of Plymouth, Sutton is part of the Devon and Cornwall constabulary area, geographically the largest policing area in England, with both rural and urban areas.
	Between 1995 and 1998, young people in Plymouth rated crime and the fear of crime just behind poverty as the second worst thing about living in Plymouth. Young people were the most likely of any demographic group to be victims of crime. One in 15 young citizens between the ages of 18 and 24 was likely to be a victim of violence, and one in 14 was likely to the a victim of domestic burglary.
	I am pleased to note that recent crime figures estimate that the national crime rate has declined by more than 6 per cent., and that this Government's anti-crime policies have contributed to a consistent decline in crime in the west country generally over the past few years. Home burglary, the handling of stolen goods, and fraud and forgery offences are all down by more than 15 per cent. in Plymouth.
	In the 12 months to March 2001, even violent crime figures were going down in all but one of the eight wards in my constituency. However, after 30 years of relentlessly increasing crime rates, it will be some time before people feel a difference in their personal and community safety. In this debate, I want to draw to my hon. Friend's attention the achievement of our crime and disorder partnership, as well as to highlight some specific aspects of local crime fighting, in which the Government's further support will help to ensure that the outlook for Plymouth continues to improve.
	The Government have a vital role to play in targeting resources and changing the law and criminal justice system to help communities in their fight against crime. However, active communities with statutory, voluntary and private organisations working in partnership are essential to achieving effective crime prevention and reduction.
	Plymouth is an example of a can-do city that is creatively developing its own solutions in partnership with the guidance of supportive, prevention-focused Government policy. Such a partnership has operated in Plymouth longer than in most other parts of the country. With its mission statement to reduce crime and the fear of crime, the Plymouth community safety partnership consists of representatives from Plymouth city council, the police, the commercial and voluntary sectors, and the local health and fire departments.
	The partnership evolved from joint agency work originally led by the Plymouth crime prevention panel in the late 1980s. In 1994, the Plymouth community safety strategy group was established. Inspired by the Morgan report, the chief constable, Sir John Evans, invited local authorities in his area to look at partnership as a way to build on the community policing principles for which the Devon and Cornwall constabulary are well known. Plymouth was therefore well placed to meet the requirements of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, to carry out a crime and disorder audit and to draw up a strategy to tackle the priorities identified by that audit.
	If the Minister is not already aware of Plymouth's reputation for partnership work, I am sure he will soon become familiar with it. That audit showed significant achievements already arising from successful partnering and problem-solving policing. Domestic burglaries had declined by 54 per cent., and there had also been a substantial increase in detected drug crimes. Detection of possession was up 20 per cent., and trafficking detection was up 40 per cent. over the three-year period. There was, unfortunately, an overall 8.9 per cent. increase in reported violent crime during the review period. Not surprisingly, the audit also revealed a correlation between the wards with the highest social and economic deprivation and those with the greatest numbers of violent offenders and offences.
	Eighty-four per cent. of students excluded from school were reported to be associated with crime. There was a strong correlation between alcohol excesses and disorder. The greatest public disorder occurred in the city centre and Plymouth's clubland areas.
	Some of the partnership's additional primary findings were as follows: offenders per capita are young--predominantly 10 to 24 years old; one in 12 burgled homes has been burgled previously; and vehicle crime remains the largest category of crime in Plymouth.
	Repeat offenders put disproportionate stresses on a range of Plymouth city agencies and account for a disproportionate amount of the city's crimes. For example, although drug-related crime accounts for only 2 per cent. of Plymouth's overall crime, more than 80 per cent. of acquisitive crime is related to drugs. That represents £1 million a week.
	I strongly support our commitment to make Britain the toughest place in the western world for drug dealers. That is an ambitious challenge, which many constituents whom I met during the election campaign wanted realised. I shall work to support those in my constituency who are dedicated to tackling the mayhem that drug addiction causes.
	I feel most strongly for the innocent bystanders. A feature of drug dealing in Plymouth appears to be that it is carried out in houses rather than on street corners. The lives of the people who live next door become a nightmare which they seem powerless to end. The police and the local authority are using the new powers that we introduced in the previous Parliament to implement antisocial behaviour orders.
	We have new resources of approximately £220,000 over three years from the community action drugs fund. That will help to broaden and deepen the resources in the city for preventing and treating drug addiction. The successful bid for additional funds to enhance and extend the CCTV resources in the city centre will also help. I am pleased that the Government and the police authority have made funding available for recruiting 275 additional police officers in the west country. Forty-one will be based in Plymouth. Those additional resources are vital to help us to bear down on crime in our community. The Minister can be confident that they will be well used, as the achievements of the community safety partnership show.
	Since the partnership was formed in 1994, vehicle theft has decreased by 50 per cent. and burglary has dropped by 60 per cent. Since 1998, burglary in multi-let properties has been targeted and has decreased by 44 per cent. A project to tackle the 20 streets with the most burglaries has exceeded the 20 per cent. reduction target for the past year. Last year's target for reduction in theft of and from cars has been exceeded.
	However, the Minister knows that as targets are achieved and exceeded each year, bearing down further on crime becomes ever more challenging. I have already referred to the most important reduction, which is that in violent crime. Last year's target was to contain the increase to 8 per cent. The outcome is a reduction of 8 per cent.
	I want to consider some subjects that merit further attention. Bearing down further on violent crime means tackling domestic violence. The domestic violence strategy for the city will be launched next week, on 5 July, after extensive consultations between the partners. Although our city has done well from its applications for various funds, we were not lucky in the initial distribution of funding for domestic violence projects.
	Domestic violence is an aspect of crime that perhaps lends itself less than others to targeted funding for targeted outcomes. One of the aims of work in the area is to ensure that incidents are reported. Policing that is targeted at reducing numbers can sometimes be subject to conflicting pressures because initial work may increase crime figures. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell the House about any future plans for enabling crime and disorder partnerships to do new work on domestic violence and whether there may be further rounds of funding for such work.
	Plymouth would like to do some new work on proposals for a restorative justice programme for women. Women, often with young children, end up with a custodial sentence in proportionately greater numbers than their male counterparts. The Plymouth project builds on the good experience of the youth offending team in developing reparation schemes with young people. That may involve a meeting with a victim, or, when more appropriate, writing a letter, or work on a damaged community building. A similar approach for female criminals as an extra option for the courts to consider would often be better for the victims as well as being more successful in re-integrating the woman and her family.
	My hon. Friend the Minister knows that Plymouth was one of the areas to pioneer arrest referral schemes for drug offences. It has also designed a project that takes a similar approach to offences committed under the influence of alcohol. The idea, drawn up by the Plymouth team, has attracted funding and is being used in other parts of Devon. Given the role that alcohol plays in disturbances in our very lively city, I hope that it will not be long before we see this scheme, which was invented in Plymouth, in action in Plymouth.
	Having pioneered such work in relation to drugs, the partnership is now working even further upstream of the arrest referral point of intervention. The police are now working with other agencies to focus on drug users, when it is believed that they are funding their habit--usually of fairly chaotic drug use--by theft or burglary. Getting them into early treatment prevents all the crimes that they might have committed before the evidence existed to arrest them. That saves individual people the cost of suffering those crimes and represents a saving on escalating costs to the public purse in terms of health, tackling crime and other public service budgets. It also reduces crime.
	Earlier, I acknowledged the significant investment that has been made in CCTV, and the effective role that CCTV has played in reducing crime in the city. There will shortly be further investment in North Stonehouse and in upgrading the control room facilities, as a result of additional funding announced earlier this year. However, this will still leave a key area of the centre of Plymouth unmonitored. Emma place and the surrounding streets are part of a longstanding red-light area in which residents are keen to see some improvement to the quality of their lives. A bid for CCTV there was unfortunately not one of the successful bids earlier this year.
	Small pockets of money are available from the Communities against Drugs funding and the CCTV bids granted earlier this year, which could contribute to the project but which do not quite add up to enough to give it an early start. I ask the Minister to be vigilant in monitoring whether there is any scope for finding money for the project, perhaps by re-allocating money from other projects that may be underspent. The project would complete CCTV oversight of the main trouble spots in the city centre. It would also mean a great deal to some of my constituents, who have been working to improve their area for some time.
	Finally, I want to mention another innovative project which is not looking so much for money as for support to do something that has the potential to have a significant impact on young people way beyond the bounds of Plymouth. Since becoming the Plymouth coroner in 1998, Mr. Nigel Meadows has campaigned for more open court hearings and made history by inviting schoolchildren to attend inquests into the deaths of drug users. When a case ends, the children are invited back in into court for a one-to-one session with Mr. Meadows and allowed to ask any questions they like. He has been trying to persuade the authorities to allow cameras into his court, so that many more people can see what goes on. He has approached the Home Office, been referred to the Lord Chief Justice and then been referred back to the Home Office. In desperation, he is now writing to our colleague the Attorney-General to tell him of his wish to open his court to cameras.
	I appreciate that this may not be within the Minister's remit, but the problem appears to be that no one is willing to own the issue. Mr. Meadows also has plans to engage convicted drug users in attendance at his court as part of our innovative local rehabilitation programmes. As part of my former employment, I had to read the transcripts of coroner's inquests. They made grim reading and I can easily understand that hearing in court about the stark reality of how the life of a drug user--normally a young drug user--can end is a good way of achieving effective prevention and rehabilitation.
	Five deaths from drugs in Plymouth have come to the coroner's attention during the past 10 days. I hope my hon. Friend will, as a matter of urgency, ensure that the Plymouth coroner's idea is given serious consideration. Interpretation of section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 seems to be the sticking point. If the law needs to be changed to clarify the position, perhaps that could be considered.
	My hon. Friend will forgive me for raising so many issues. I realise, of course, that an Adjournment debate is not the place for announcements to be made about such issues, but I hope that he will understand my enthusiasm to celebrate the creativity, innovation and, best of all, results that stem from Plymouth's community safety partnership experience.
	Having learned of Plymouth's good track record in partnership and problem solving, I hope that the Minister will look at Plymouth as a good place to support the piloting of new schemes. A second audit is planned for this year, and the results will be useful to determine which of the measures that we have used will continue to work, further to bear down on crime in Plymouth. We have achieved good results thus far, but we have more work to do before our citizens, young and old alike, will feel a quantum difference in their personal safety.
	I believe that Plymouth is at the cutting edge of partnership community safety and policing. Minister, please continue with legislation that supports Plymouth and other communities in bearing down on crime and pilot more problem-solving approaches in Plymouth. We make good use of funds and can help the Government to meet their targets. Come and visit Plymouth, celebrate our successes with us and ensure that we continue to have the chance to show how we can positively transform the quality of life of our constituents.

Bob Ainsworth: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) on securing the Adjournment debate for which she has been trying for some time. She will not be surprised to learn that my comments will echo much of what she said.
	It is Government policy to increase police numbers. As a result, we have established the crime fighting fund to provide the necessary additional resources to all police forces. We have also provided extra resources to aid policing in rural areas. Devon and Cornwall police will recruit an extra 79 officers this year as a direct result of both those measures. In turn, the city of Plymouth will benefit from 16 more officers over the coming months.
	The Government also recognise, however, that the fight against crime cannot be won by the police working alone. In some of the first legislation that we introduced on coming to power in 1997, we created crime and disorder partnerships to bring together at a local level all those with a part to play in reducing crime. The story of crime reduction in Plymouth is, as my hon. Friend said, an excellent example of what can be achieved by a wide variety of local agencies working in partnership, supported, when necessary, by central Government funding.
	Plymouth reacted early to the principle set out by the Morgan report in 1991, which is that
	"reduction of crime cannot be left to the police alone".
	It formed the Plymouth community safety strategy group in 1993, and a safer cities project followed, running from 1994 to 1997. Following the introduction of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Plymouth community safety partnership was formed by agencies that by then needed little convincing of the advantages of working together.
	Since 1998, the partnership has run a range of projects funded by a number of Government programmes such as the crime reduction programme and the single regeneration budget, which have successfully targeted the most vulnerable and victimised areas of the city. Those programmes have helped to reduce domestic burglary, vehicle crime and violent crime--offences identified by the Government as being of most concern to the community.
	An example is the homesafe project, which received £170,000 from the reducing burglary initiative. That was aimed at improving the security of houses of multiple occupation. Those houses, which, frequently, consisted of bedsits occupied by students, represented only 3 per cent. of local housing stock but accounted for 20 per cent. of domestic burglary. The scheme involved the city council housing department, the fire and rescue service, local private landlords and higher education colleges.
	A security certificate scheme was developed, which encouraged private landlords to improve door and window security standards to a level that qualified them for a certificate. Only those landlords holding such a certificate would be recommended by the colleges to students looking for accommodation. Since 1998, burglary in those properties has dropped 44 per cent., compared with the national burglary reduction target of 25 per cent.
	A further project called "Safe as Houses" was granted £72,000 under the reducing burglary initiative to improve security in 3,800 homes in 20 streets identified as suffering the highest incidence of burglary. As a result of those security improvements, burglary rates in those streets have dropped 22 per cent. since 1999. In the city as a whole, rates dropped by 17 per cent. in the year to September 2000, compared with 1999.
	Vehicle crime has also been tackled through partnership involving all the key agencies. A variety of approaches have been adopted. Publicity using local radio and advertisements in the local press have targeted potential victims, giving simple precautionary advice that they should not leave property visible in parked vehicles. Offenders and potential offenders have been targeted through the TREADS motor project, which provides an understanding of cars and teaches driving skills to all young people, while providing extra programmes for those who are at risk or have been referred to the project through the youth offending team. More than 250 young people from Plymouth have been through the scheme since the beginning of the year, and it has led to a reduction in reoffending among this group.
	Vulnerable sites such as car parks have been targeted for increased security. Two car parks have achieved the Association of Chief Police Officers secure car park standard, and £114,000 was granted under the crime reduction programme closed-circuit television scheme to assist by providing cameras for the car parks at Derriford hospital. That sustained activity addressing all elements of vehicle crime has reduced offences of taking a vehicle without consent by more than 50 per cent. since 1994. Over the last year the number of thefts from vehicles has fallen by 10.5 per cent., while the number of vehicle thefts has fallen by 13.2 per cent.
	The partnership has also successfully targeted violent crime in public places and on licensed premises. A registration scheme for door staff on licensed premises has been introduced, requiring them to undergo training before being licensed to supervise doors.
	The CCTV scheme at Derriford hospital, along with improved links with the health and ambulance services, has helped to reassure staff and reduce their vulnerability. As a result of those and other initiatives, violent crime in the city has fallen by 8 per cent. over the last year, as my hon. Friend said. That is a significant achievement, given the increases seen in many cities with similar problems.
	The partnership is continuing to build on this success. I am aware that it has two further bids for Government funding for CCTV schemes. I assure my hon. Friend that the bids are being evaluated, and that we hope to decide shortly which have been successful.
	Drugs continue to be a major influence on crime levels, and a recent concern is evidence that crack cocaine has begun circulating in the city. The Government have recognised the damage that drugs can do to local communities and have announced funding for all community safety partnerships to tackle the problem: the communities against drugs fund. The Plymouth partnership will receive £224,700 this year, and is actively developing plans to use the money to disrupt the local drugs market. Those plans will be produced in consultation with the drugs action team and the local police commander, whose willingness to consider and adopt a wide range of policing options has already contributed significantly to the successes enjoyed in the city.

Linda Gilroy: I am pleased that the Minister mentioned the local Chief Superintendent Pearce. Will he congratulate the superintendent and his team on coming down very hard on the recent advent of crack cocaine in the city, through Project Ovidian? That appears to have put the lid on the problem at least for the present, although we must remain vigilant.

Bob Ainsworth: That is certainly what I intend to do. According to all that I have heard from officials in the Home Office, the superintendent's attitude to the partnership and to methods of working in the city have been innovative, and he has been supportive in employing policing methods that have delivered considerable success.
	Although levels of crime in Plymouth remain above average, they are being reduced, but people's fear of crime often remains disproportionate to the actual risk. Reassurance from familiar and recognisable figures in the community often helps to address such fears. The Government have provided nearly £90,000 to fund the presence of 12 neighbourhood wardens in the city. They have been there since April this year, providing ready and visible reassurance and acting as the eyes and ears of the community, solving problems as they arise and connecting residents with additional services when required to do so.
	Crime is often the product of a range of factors present in particular areas. The Government are addressing the underlying issues through a number of programmes in Plymouth, which include a new deal for communities programme, a health action zone, an employment zone, and an education action zone. The new deal for communities programme is providing almost £49 million over 10 years to improve the infrastructure of a deprived community at the heart of the city, through an integrated approach to problem solving by the local people.
	Reducing crime is a major issue that will be addressed in the first year of the new deal programme through a number of initiatives aimed particularly at burglary and drug abuse. A further eight constables are planned for the area covered to help to tackle crime and disorder and to reassure local people. A CCTV scheme is also planned, together with the development of the homesafe project. Work with excluded pupils and young persons and family drug support programmes will also be undertaken.
	The first year programme will commence on 2 July, and on 5 July a domestic violence strategy is due to be signed by representatives of all the key agencies. The targets set in this strategy will also be incorporated in the city council corporate plan.
	As the partnership commences its crime audit and consultation with the people of Plymouth in preparation for the new crime reduction strategy, its efforts will be supported by resources from the Government's partnership development fund, which has provided £1.7 million this year to help community safety partnerships in the south-west to improve their performance. A substantial part of this funding is aimed at improving the lT available to collect, analyse and share data within the partnership. That will provide geographical information systems, which allow crime hot spots to be accurately mapped and tracked, so enabling resources to be targeted more effectively at areas where crime is most threatening.
	Plymouth has consistently shown the benefits that can be achieved through working in partnership. It has shown that, by identifying and targeting crime problems, real reductions can be made by focusing actions around the community safety model. That model combines activities to improve law enforcement and crime prevention, and the rehabilitation of offenders. The experience that the partnership has gained will be invaluable as the new crime reduction strategy is developed and integrated with the broader regeneration work that is being taken forward in the city.
	My hon. Friend raised the matter of the Plymouth coroner, Mr. Nigel Meadows, being able to allow cameras into his court. I am sorry if the Plymouth coroner feels that his inquiries about filming have not been dealt with appropriately. The issue is subject to the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1925, which prohibits photography in court. Whether the prohibition applies in the particular circumstances envisaged by the coroner is a matter for him to decide. That was explained to my hon. Friend's neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), in correspondence on behalf of the coroner last year. The Government have no plans to amend the legislation. If further clarification is needed, I shall try to ensure that it is supplied.

Linda Gilroy: Would my hon. Friend also agree to further discussion and perhaps a meeting with the coroner? It is such an enterprising scheme, and we need every tool in our arsenal if we are to succeed in making this the toughest country in the western world on drug dealers.

Bob Ainsworth: I would not be opposed to that. We want to listen to views, but I hope that my hon. Friend realises that there are many aspects to allowing cameras into court. If she makes those representations on behalf of the coroner, I promise to consider them and to respond as positively as I can.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Seven o'clock.